Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_20-cv-00568/USCOURTS-cand-4_20-cv-00568-2/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 

United States District Court 

Northern District of Californi

a

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

ANDREW B. WATTS, 

Petitioner, 

v. 

CINDY BLACK, et al., 

Respondent. 

Case No. 20-cv-00568-HSG 

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR 

RECONSIDERATION 

Re: Dkt. No. 15 

Petitioner, a civil detainee housed at Napa State Hospital, filed this pro se action seeking a 

writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. On March 9, 2020, the Court dismissed this 

petition because it failed to state any cognizable claims for federal habeas relief, because 

petitioner’s claims are palpably incredible, and because there was no allegation that his custody is 

in violation of federal law. Dkt. No. 10. The Court denied a certificate of appealability and 

entered judgement in favor of respondent. Dkt. Nos. 10, 11. Now pending before the Court is 

petitioner’s request that the Court reconsider its dismissal of the petition. Dkt. No. 15. 

DISCUSSION 

Petitioner argues that reconsideration is appropriate because the Court applied the incorrect 

standard in dismissing his petition and that he only need satisfy the liberal pleading standard set 

forth in Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a); because the events described in the petition violated the law under 

two legal theories: “(1) a ‘hybrid’ claim for Champion’s breach of the collective bargaining 

agreement, and the Defendant’s breach of its duty of fair representation; and (2) a claim for 

violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).’”. Dkt. No. 15 at 3. Petitioner also 

requests that the Court appoint counsel, arguing that counsel and a bench hearing would assist in 

demonstrating to the Court that his claims are not palpably incredible. Dkt. No. 15 at 3. Petitioner 

Case 4:20-cv-00568-HSG Document 16 Filed 03/25/20 Page 1 of 2
2 

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 

United States District Court 

Northern District of Californi

a

also alleges that he needs federal subpoenas to get at the truth, to obtain his social security 

number, to persuade the United States Attorney General to testify, to prove that he is not Andrew 

Watts, and to access military benefits and accounts that are in trust. 

The Court has carefully considered petitioner’s arguments and find that these claims are 

also palpably incredible. In addition, the relief sought by petitioner and the causes of action 

brought by petitioner are not properly brought in a federal habeas petition. A federal habeas 

petition allows a person confined pursuant to the judgment of a State court to challenge his 

confinement on the ground that he is in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties 

of the United States. A federal habeas petition cannot enforce a collective bargaining agreement, 

or the breach of a duty, or a violation of the ADA. Subpoenas cannot be issued as part of a federal 

habeas actions and, generally speaking, individuals are not compelled to testify. 

In his motion for reconsideration, petitioner still has not alleged a cognizable claim for 

federal habeas relief. Petitioner alleges that defendants have violated a collective bargaining 

agreement, and that there has been an ADA violation. Assuming arguendo that such claims are 

cognizable,1 these would not be the subject of a federal habeas petition. Petitioner has failed to 

state any cognizable claims for federal habeas relief. Accordingly, his motion for reconsideration 

of the dismissal of the petition is DENIED.

CONCLUSION

 For the reasons set forth below, the Court DENIES the request for reconsideration. This 

case remains closed. 

This order terminates Dkt. No. 15. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: 3/25/2020 

______________________________________ 

HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR. 

United States District Judge 

1

 It is doubtful that such claims are cognizable. It is unclear how the California Attorney General 

and administrators at Napa State Hospital are liable for Champion’s breach of a collective 

bargaining agreement, or how a breach of a collective bargaining agreement is related to plaintiff’s 

claims. There is no ADA violation for dismissing a petition. 

Case 4:20-cv-00568-HSG Document 16 Filed 03/25/20 Page 2 of 2