Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_08-cv-00390/USCOURTS-caed-2_08-cv-00390-0/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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

STEVEN LLOYD HRONIS,

Petitioner, No. CIV S-08-0390 FCD KJM P 

vs.

TOM FELKER, et al., 

Respondents. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

 /

Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed an action on the court’s

form for an application for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. In the action,

he complains that prison officials have implanted “devices” in his body which allow him to be

“monitored and tracked.” 

In considering whether to dismiss an action as frivolous pursuant to § 1915(d), the

court has especially broad discretion. Conway v. Fugge, 439 F.2d 1397 (9th Cir. 1971). The

Ninth Circuit has held that an action is frivolous if it lacks arguable substance in law and fact. 

Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1227-28 (9th Cir. 1984). The court's determination of

whether a complaint or claim is frivolous is based on “‘an assessment of the substance of the

claim presented, i.e., is there a factual and legal basis, of constitutional dimension, for the

asserted wrong, however inartfully pleaded.’” Franklin, 745 F.2d at 1227 (citations omitted).

Case 2:08-cv-00390-FCD-KJM Document 4 Filed 04/07/08 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

1

 A court may take judicial notice of court records. See MGIC Indem. Co. v. Weisman, 803

F.2d 500, 505 (9th Cir. 1986); United States v. Wilson, 631 F.2d 118, 119 (9th Cir. 1980).

2

Petitioner's petition was filed with the Court of Appeals on October 1, 2007 and

transferred to this court on February 21, 2008. The court's own records reveal that on July 1 and

July 8, 2004, petitioner filed petitions containing virtually identical allegations against the same

respondents. (No. Civ. S-04-1267 GEB DAD & No. Civ. S-04-1302 LKK PAN ).1

 Due to the

duplicative nature of the present action, the court finds it frivolous and, therefore, will dismiss

the petition. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d).

In addition, in determining whether an action is frivolous, the court may “pierce

the veil of the complaint’s factual allegations and dismiss those claims whose factual contentions

are clearly baseless.” Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 327 (1989). Such allegations include

those “describing fantastic or delusional scenarios, claims with which federal district judges are

all too familiar.” Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 328; see also Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 33

(1992) (finding of frivolousness appropriate when allegations are irrational or wholly

incredible).

Petitioner’s claim that he is being tracked by devices implanted in his body satisfies this

definition of frivolous. 

/////

/////

/////

/////

//////

//////

/////

/////

/////

Case 2:08-cv-00390-FCD-KJM Document 4 Filed 04/07/08 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

3

IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed as frivolous.

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the District Judge assigned

to this case pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within twenty days after being

served with these findings and recommendations, petitioner may file written 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: April 4, 2008. 

2/ hron0390.friv

Case 2:08-cv-00390-FCD-KJM Document 4 Filed 04/07/08 Page 3 of 3