Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_10-cv-05702/USCOURTS-cand-3_10-cv-05702-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Lorenzo Arteaga
Petitioner
The State of California
Respondent

Document Text:

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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 The United States Supreme Court, noting that Arteaga had filed 20 petitions with the

Supreme Court, 16 within two terms, has barred in forma pauperis filings by him in civil rights

cases. Arteaga v. United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, 522 U.S. 446 (1998).

Arteaga is subject to a prefiling review order in the United State Court of Appeals for the Ninth

Circuit, which declined to allow him to appeal in nine cases from this court, and which

instructed its clerk to return his papers unfiled in those cases. In re Lorenzo Arteaga, No.

95-80113 (9th Cir. July 9, 1998).

No. C 10-5702 RS (PR)

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

*E-Filed 1/5/11*

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

LORENZO ARTEAGA,

Petitioner,

v.

STATE OF CALIFORNIA, et al.,

Respondents. /

No. C 10-5702 RS (PR)

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

INTRODUCTION

This is a federal habeas petition filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 by a pro se state

prisoner who is a frequent litigator in this Court.1

 The Court finds the petition is

incomprehensible and without an arguable basis in law. Accordingly, the Court will

DISMISS the petition. 

Case 3:10-cv-05702-RS Document 6 Filed 01/05/11 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

No. C 10-5702 RS (PR)

2 ORDER OF DISMISSAL

DISCUSSION

A district court may entertain a petition for writ of habeas corpus “in behalf of a

person in custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court only on the ground that he is

in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C.

§ 2254(a); Rose v. Hodges, 423 U.S. 19, 21 (1975). A habeas petition may be dismissed

summarily “[i]f it plainly appears from the face of the petition and any exhibits annexed to it

that the petitioner is not entitled to relief in the district court.” Rule 4, Rules Governing

Section 2254 Cases; Hendricks v. Vasquez, 908 F.2d 490, 491 (9th Cir. 1990). 

The petition is an incomprehensible mix of complaints about the state of California’s

alleged abuse of process in petitioner’s previous criminal prosecutions. A district court must

dismiss such claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1),(2) (district court must dismiss any

frivolous claims in prisoner complaint); Jackson v. Arizona, 885 F.2d 639, 641 9th Cir. 1989)

(claim that is incomprehensible is frivolous as it is without an arguable basis in law). 

A certificate of appealability will not issue. Petitioner has not shown “that jurists of

reason would find it debatable whether the petition states a valid claim of the denial of a

constitutional right and that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the district court

was correct in its procedural ruling.” Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). 

Petitioner’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis (Docket Nos. 3 & 5) is GRANTED. 

Petitioner’s motion for a writ of corum nobis (Docket No. 2) is DENIED. The Clerk shall

enter judgment in favor of respondents, terminate the pending motions (Docket Nos. 2, 3 &

5) and close the file.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: January 5, 2011 

 RICHARD SEEBORG

United States District Judge

Case 3:10-cv-05702-RS Document 6 Filed 01/05/11 Page 2 of 2