Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_20-cv-00333/USCOURTS-caed-2_20-cv-00333-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Brandon Price
Respondent
Rebio Ronnie Townsend
Petitioner

Document Text:

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 

REBIO RONNIE TOWNSEND, 

Petitioner, 

v. 

BRANDON PRICE, 

Respondent. 

No. 2:20-cv-0333-EFB P 

ORDER AND FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS 

Petitioner proceeds pro se and is civilly committed at Coalinga State Hospital. He has 

filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 5) which makes the required showing 

and will be granted. However, for the reasons stated below his habeas petition must be dismissed. 

I. Legal Standards 

The court must dismiss a habeas petition or portion thereof if the prisoner raises claims 

that are legally “frivolous or malicious” or fail to state a basis on which habeas relief may be 

granted. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1),(2). The court must dismiss a habeas petition “[i]f it plainly 

appears from the petition and any attached exhibits that the petitioner is not entitled to relief[.]” 

Rule 4, Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. 

///// 

///// 

///// 

Case 2:20-cv-00333-TLN-EFB Document 7 Filed 04/09/20 Page 1 of 4
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 

II. Analysis 

The petition (ECF No. 1) is difficult to follow. As best the court can tell, it identifies four 

grounds for relief and seeks $50,000,0001 and “release.” ECF No. 1 at 15. As discussed below, 

none of the grounds for relief articulate a substantive legal basis for federal habeas relief and 

ground one appears to be successive.2 The court recommends that the petition be dismissed 

without leave to amend, as such leave appears to be futile. 

In ground one, petitioner contends that the lies of psychiatrists “over the last 15 years” 

have played a role in his “long, unlawful incarceration.” ECF No. 1 at 5. To the extent that 

ground one is a challenge to his 2008 conviction, entered twelve years ago in the Sacramento 

County Superior Court, the petition is successive, see Townsend v. Atascadero State Hospital, 

No. 2:11-cv-2058-GGH (E.D. Cal.), and cannot be entertained by this court unless the Ninth 

Circuit authorizes it to go forward. 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A). Moreover, none of the alleged 

facts make much sense or come close to demonstrating a possible constitutional violation. See, 

e.g., ECF No. 1 at 5 (alleging that psychiatrist said petitioner “had threatened to kill [his] drillsergeant when no one ever knew [he] was in the military.”). 

In ground two, petitioner states that he was deemed a “mentally disordered offender” and 

civilly committed in 2012, and in ground three, he seems to vaguely challenge a decision of an 

appellate court. Id. at 7-8. To the extent these grounds for relief are intended to challenge his 

commitment as a “mentally disordered offender,” Rule 2(e) of the Rules Governing Section 2254 

Cases in the United States District Courts precludes him from doing so. The Rule provides that 

“a petitioner who seeks relief from judgments of more than one state court must file a separate 

1

 To the extent that petitioner attempts to challenge the conditions of his confinement, or 

seeks monetary damages for same, he must pursue such claims through a civil rights complaint 

under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

2

 A petition is second or successive if it makes “claims contesting the same custody 

imposed by the same judgment of a state court” that the petitioner previously challenged, and on 

which the federal court issued a decision on the merits. Burton v. Stewart, 549 U.S. 147 (2007); 

see also Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 485-86 (2000). Before filing a second or successive 

petition in a district court, a petitioner must obtain from the appellate court “an order authorizing 

the district court to consider the application.” 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A). Without an order from 

the appellate court, the district court is without jurisdiction to consider a second or successive 

petition. See Burton, 549 U.S. 147. 

Case 2:20-cv-00333-TLN-EFB Document 7 Filed 04/09/20 Page 2 of 4
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 

petition covering the judgment or judgments of each court.” Since petitioner’s first ground for 

relief appears tied to his 2008 conviction, he may not also pursue his 2012 designation as a 

“mentally disordered offender” through this action. Even assuming he could so proceed, he 

would not be entitled to any relief. The grounds for relief read as long, unfocused ramblings, and 

do not specify any legal or factual bases for relief. See, e.g., ECF No. 1 at 7 (Ground Two 

alleging his psychiatrist had “lay in wait” for him); id. at 8 (Ground Three alleging that he was 

“wrongfully [ ] set-up and labelled as a ‘mentally disordered offender,’ [which] is a complete and 

utterly conceived fraud.”). 

In ground four, petitioner states that he is subject to a court order requiring that he be 

permanently placed on psychiatric medication. ECF No. 1 at 10. Courts have previously 

informed petitioner that if he wishes to challenge court-ordered involuntary medication, his 

remedy may be to challenge the order in the court where the order requiring involuntary 

medication was issued. See Townsend v. King, No. 2:15-cv-1878-KJN (E.D. Cal. Mar. 5, 2019), 

ECF No. 17 at 1-2; Mendoza v. Gill, 1:14-cv-0098-AWI-GSA (E.D. Cal. Sept. 2, 2014), ECF No. 

6 at 3. 

 III. Conclusion 

 Accordingly, it is ORDERED that: 

1. Petitioner’s application to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 5) is GRANTED; and 

2. The Clerk of Court shall randomly assign a United States District Judge to this case. 

 Further, it is RECOMMENDED that the petition (ECF No. 1) be DISMISSED. 

 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)(1). Within fourteen days 

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

objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned 

“Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Failure to file objections 

within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Turner v. 

Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998); Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). In 

his objections petitioner may address whether a certificate of appealability should issue in the 

Case 2:20-cv-00333-TLN-EFB Document 7 Filed 04/09/20 Page 3 of 4
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 

4 

event he files an appeal of the judgment in this case. See Rule 11, Rules Governing § 2254 Cases 

(the district court must issue or deny a certificate of appealability when it enters a final order 

adverse to the applicant). 

DATED: April 9, 2020. 

Case 2:20-cv-00333-TLN-EFB Document 7 Filed 04/09/20 Page 4 of 4