Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_16-cv-01349/USCOURTS-caed-1_16-cv-01349-0/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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MELANIE C. LATRONICA,

Petitioner,

v.

U.S. DISTRICT COURT, EASTERN 

DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA – FRESNO 

DIVISION,

Respondent.

Case No. 1:16-cv-01349-SAB-HC

ORDER DISMISSING PETITION FOR 

WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS AND 

DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF 

MANDAMUS

Petitioner is proceeding pro se with a petition for writs of habeas corpus and mandamus.

(ECF No. 1). Petitioner has consented to the jurisdiction of the United States Magistrate Judge. 

(ECF No. 2).

I.

DISCUSSION

A. Habeas Corpus 

Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases1requires preliminary review of a 

habeas petition and allows a district court to dismiss a petition before the respondent is ordered 

to file a response if it “plainly appears from the petition and any attached exhibits that the 

 

1 The Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases apply to § 2241 habeas petitions. See Rule 1(b) of the Rules Governing 

Section 2254 Cases (“The district court may apply any or all of these rules to a habeas corpus petition not covered 

by” 28 U.S.C. § 2254.).

Case 1:16-cv-01349-SAB Document 5 Filed 09/20/16 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

petitioner is not entitled to relief in the district court.” The federal habeas statute provides that a 

district court may entertain a habeas application by a person “in custody under or by color of the 

authority of the United States” or “in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties 

of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c)(1), (3). “The custody requirement of the habeas 

corpus statute is designed to preserve the writ of habeas corpus as a remedy for severe restraints 

on individual liberty.” Hensley v. Municipal Court, 411 U.S. 345, 351 (1973). Although 

Petitioner claims that she was given the death penalty without due process in the 1970s, 

Petitioner is not in state or federal custody. Rather, Petitioner alleges that she “was stolen as a 

baby and switched and traded all these years and she‟s still not in her body.” (ECF No. 1 at 2).2

Additionally, Petitioner‟s address of record is a residential address in Modesto, California. Given 

that Petitioner is not “in custody” as recognized under the federal habeas statute, this Court lacks

jurisdiction. Accordingly, to the extent Petitioner is seeking a writ of habeas corpus, the petition 

should be dismissed.

B. Mandamus

Petitioner also seeks a writ of mandamus. The federal mandamus statute provides: “The 

district courts shall have original jurisdiction of any action in the nature of mandamus to compel 

an officer or employee of the United States or any agency thereof to perform a duty owed to the 

plaintiff.” 28 U.S.C. § 1361. The Ninth Circuit has held:

Mandamus relief is only available to compel an officer of the 

United States to perform a duty if (1) the plaintiff‟s claim is clear 

and certain; (2) the duty of the officer is ministerial and so plainly 

prescribed as to be free from doubt; and (3) no other adequate 

remedy is available.

Fallini v. Hodel, 783 F.2d 1343, 1345 (9th Cir. 1986) (internal quotation and citations omitted).

The Supreme Court has “repeatedly has observed that the writ of mandamus is an extraordinary 

remedy, to be reserved for extraordinary situations,” Gulfstream Aerospace Corp. v. Mayacamas 

Corp., 485 U.S. 271, 289 (1988), and “mandamus under 28 U.S.C. § 1361 will issue only to 

compel the performance of „a clear nondiscretionary duty.‟” Pittston Coal Group v. Sebben, 488 

U.S. 105, 121 (1988) (quoting Heckler v. Ringer, 466 U.S. 602, 616 (1984)).

 

2

Page numbers refer to the ECF page numbers stamped at the top of the page.

Case 1:16-cv-01349-SAB Document 5 Filed 09/20/16 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

Here, Petitioner alleges that “Merill Lynch is the Slave Trade, Tangible, Intangible, 

Water Assets, General Intangibles and or Tangibles, Movables (other people‟s bodies).” (ECF 

No. 1 at 2). Petitioner further alleges that she has “been tortured in other peoples [sic] destroyed 

bodies” and that she “has been tortured and deprived of her life . . . since the age of infancy . . . 

and now she is 45 going on 46.” (Id. at 5, 7). Petitioner claims that although she was briefly in 

her own body in Contra Costa County in 2012, “the person detaining her body still hasn‟t 

stopped obviously, instead subject[ing] her to continue[d] control, ruin and torture, stealing and 

depriving her life and still subjecting her to life deprivation and torture in other people‟s bodies.” 

(Id. at 5). Petitioner “applies to the Fresno U.S. District Court for remedy and to Appeal an 

unauthorized death penalty that has plagued [Petitioner‟s] entire life as mentioned ([Petitioner] is 

NOT in her body), her identity, her life, her existence.” (Id. at 7). Petitioner‟s claim is not clear 

and certain, Petitioner has failed to allege a clear nondiscretionary duty, and her allegations are 

largely incoherent and palpably incredible. Accordingly, Petitioner is not entitled to mandamus 

relief. 

II.

ORDER

Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The petition for writ of habeas corpus is DISMISSED;

2. The petition for writ of mandamus is DENIED; and

3. The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to CLOSE the case.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 20, 2016 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:16-cv-01349-SAB Document 5 Filed 09/20/16 Page 3 of 3