Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_16-cv-01318/USCOURTS-caed-2_16-cv-01318-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 28:2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RUSLEY ROBINSON, JR.,

Petitioner,

v.

CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF 

CORRECTIONS,

Respondent.

No. 2:16-cv-1318 KJN P

ORDER AND FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS

Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Petitioner paid the filing fee. 

Petitioner challenges his 1996 conviction for multiple counts of attempted murder, 

multiple counts of assault with a deadly weapon other than a firearm, one count of shooting into 

an unoccupied vehicle, two counts of being a convicted felon in possession of a firearm, all 

enhanced by findings that petitioner used a firearm in the attempted murders and was previously 

convicted of a serious felony. 

The court’s records reveal that petitioner has previously filed an application for a writ of 

habeas corpus attacking the conviction and sentence challenged in this case. Robinson v. 

Director of Corrections, Case No. CIV S-98-0104 GEB JFM (E.D. Cal.). The previous 

application was filed on January 15, 1998, and was denied on the merits on September 23, 1999. 

Case 2:16-cv-01318-JAM-KJN Document 3 Filed 06/21/16 Page 1 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

Before petitioner can proceed with the instant application, he must move in the United States 

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit for an order authorizing the district court to consider the 

application.1 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3). Therefore, petitioner’s application must be dismissed 

without prejudice to its re-filing upon obtaining authorization from the United States Court of 

Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

In addition, petitioner cites to Presidential Executive Order 10834, August 21, 1959, and 

Army Regulations 840-10 and 260-10, in an attempt to invoke admiralty or military jurisdiction 

over this case. Petitioner’s argument that the gold fringe around an American flag in a courtroom 

designates admiralty or military jurisdiction is one of several wholly frivolous arguments. 

Therefore, the court declines to construe petitioner’s pleading as a civil rights complaint under 42 

U.S.C. § 1983. Also, the court notes that petitioner paid the $5.00 filing fee assessed in habeas 

cases filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, rather than the $400.00 filing fee assessed in civil rights cases 

filed under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

Finally, to the extent petitioner seeks relief from the Yolo County Superior Court order 

issued November 6, 2015 (ECF No. 1 at 3), petitioner is advised that this court does not have 

appellate jurisdiction over state superior courts. If petitioner wishes to appeal the denial of his 

motion filed in the Yolo County Superior Court, he must file his appeal in the Court of Appeal of 

the State of California, Third Appellate District.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court is directed to assign 

a district judge to this case; and

IT IS RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed without prejudice. 

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 

assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen days 

after being served with these findings and recommendations, petitioner may file written 

 

1

 Petitioner has twice before attempted to file a second or successive petition for writ of habeas 

corpus in this district. Robinson v. Director of CDC, Case No. 01-cv-1806 GEB JFM (E.D. Cal.), 

and Robinson v. CDC, Case No. 03-cv-1492 GEB JFM (E.D. Cal.). Both cases were dismissed 

without prejudice to refiling upon obtaining authorization from the United States Court of 

Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

Case 2:16-cv-01318-JAM-KJN Document 3 Filed 06/21/16 Page 2 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

3

objections with the court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s 

Findings and Recommendations.” Petitioner is advised that failure to file objections within the

specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951

F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

Dated: June 21, 2016

robi1318.156.suc

Case 2:16-cv-01318-JAM-KJN Document 3 Filed 06/21/16 Page 3 of 3