Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-01138/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-01138-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Zane Hubbard
Petitioner
United States of America
Respondent

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ZANE HUBBARD,

Petitioner,

v.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Respondents.

Case No. 1:15-cv-01138 LJO MJS (HC)

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION 

THAT THE PETITION FOR WRIT OF 

HABEAS CORPUS BE DISMISSED AS 

FRIVOLOUS AND FOR FAILURE TO 

STATE A COGNIZABLE CLAIM

[Doc. 1]

Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas 

corpus under the authority of 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 

Petitioner filed the instant petition for writ of habeas corpus on July 22, 2015. 

(Pet., ECF No. 1.) In the petition, Petitioner presents several independent allegations

against over fifty Respondents. As an example, Petitioner's first five claims against 

Respondents include the following allegations: (1) he alleges that Michael Moreno, an 

ex-felon took bribes to falsify Petitioner's gang affiliations; (2) that Graciela Moreno, a 

local television news reporter, and relative to Michael Moreno, has used her status to 

harass and assault Petitioner into a entering a personal relationship with her; (3) that 

Michelle Williams, Petitioner's mother, gave permission to Anthony Williams, her brother, 

to sexually harass Petitioner by way of electronic surveillance constituting military force, 

Case 1:15-cv-01138-LJO-MJS Document 8 Filed 09/10/15 Page 1 of 5
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

and that Anthony Williams falsely imprisoned Petitioner and subjected him to double 

jeopardy for purposes of sexual harassment; (4) that Richard Arambulo provided 

information against Petitioner by way of electronic surveillance constituting military force; 

and (5) that Donny Youngblood ordered Petitioner to be expatriated based on 

discrimination. 

Petitioner also presents claims against President Obama for declaring war and 

genocide against Petitioner based on Petitioner's Mayan American race; Pope Francis 

for declaring war against Mayan Americans through the North American Free Trade 

Agreement and the Patriot Act; and presents claims against Jeh Johnson, the Secretary 

of the Department of Homeland Security, and member of the United States Department 

of Justice for similar claims of conspiracy and torture. (See generally, Pet.)

I. DISCUSSION

A. Procedural Grounds for Summary Dismissal

Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases provides in pertinent part:

If it plainly appears from the petition and any attached exhibits that 

the petitioner is not entitled to relief in the district court, the judge must 

dismiss the petition and direct the clerk to notify the petitioner.

The Advisory Committee Notes to Rule 8 indicate that the court may dismiss a 

petition for writ of habeas corpus, either on its own motion under Rule 4, pursuant to the 

respondent’s motion to dismiss, or after an answer to the petition has been filed. A 

petition for habeas corpus should not be dismissed without leave to amend unless it 

appears that no tenable claim for relief can be pleaded were such leave granted. Jarvis 

v. Nelson, 440 F.2d 13, 14 (9th Cir. 1971).

B. Failure to State Cognizable Claim

The instant petition must be dismissed because it does not challenge the fact or 

duration of Petitioner’s confinement. 

A federal court may only grant a petition for writ of habeas corpus if the petitioner 

can show that "he is in custody in violation of the Constitution . . . ." 28 U.S.C. § 

2254(a). A habeas corpus petition is the correct method for a prisoner to challenge the 

Case 1:15-cv-01138-LJO-MJS Document 8 Filed 09/10/15 Page 2 of 5
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

“legality or duration” of his confinement. Badea v. Cox, 931 F.2d 573, 574 (9th Cir. 

1991), quoting, Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 485 (1973); Advisory Committee 

Notes to Rule 1 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. 

In contrast, a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 is the proper method 

for a prisoner to challenge the conditions of that confinement. McCarthy v. Bronson, 500 

U.S. 136, 141-42 (1991); Preiser, 411 U.S. at 499; Badea, 931 F.2d at 574; Advisory 

Committee Notes to Rule 1 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. 

Petitioner’s claims do not implicate the fact or duration of his confinement. In 

general, Petitioner presents claims against many people based on perceived 

conspiratorial threats and actions against his person. (See Pet.)

To the extent that Petitioner seeks relief for his civil rights by way of a Section 

1983 complaint, the Court finds Plaintiff's claims to be frivolous. A claim is factually 

frivolous if its allegations are bizarre, irrational or incredible. Edwards v. Snyder, 478 

F.3d 827, 829-830 (7th Cir. 2007). See Gladney v. Pendleton Corr. Facility, 302 F.3d 

773, 774 (7th Cir. 2002); see also Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 327, 109 S. Ct. 

1827, 104 L. Ed. 2d 338 (1989) (a claim is factually frivolous under Section 1915 if it is 

"clearly baseless"); see also Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 33, 112 S. Ct. 1728, 

118 L. Ed. 2d 340 (1992) (explaining that "a finding of factual frivolousness is 

appropriate when the facts alleged rise to the level of the irrational or wholly incredible.") 

If the Plaintiff's action is frivolous, then the Court has the discretion to dismiss where the 

deficiencies cannot be cured by amendment. Broughton v. Cutter Laboratories, 622 F.2d 

458, 460 (1980) (citing Crawford v. Bell, 599 F.2d 890, 893 (9th Cir. 1979)). The critical 

inquiry is whether a constitutional claim, however inartfully pleaded, has an arguable 

legal and factual basis. Jackson v. Arizona, 885 F.2d 639, 640 (9th Cir. 1989).

Plaintiff's allegations that there has been a vast conspiracy against him from 

many defendants including high ranking government officials and other world leaders is 

patently incredible and unbelievable. The petition is frivolous and devoid of factual 

support or arguable question of law. See Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 327-328.

Case 1:15-cv-01138-LJO-MJS Document 8 Filed 09/10/15 Page 3 of 5
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

Petitioner does not challenge his underlying conviction or duration of confinement. 

Petitioner’s claims are not cognizable grounds for federal habeas corpus relief and must 

be dismissed. Should Petitioner wish to pursue his claims, the proper vehicle for such 

claims would be a civil rights complaint. While it appears that Petitioner's claims are 

frivolous, the petition is quite lengthy (94 pages) and it is possible that the Court may 

have overlooked a cognizable claim. Accordingly, the Court will not deny Petitioner the 

opportunity to attempt to present his claims by way of a civil rights complaint. 

As it does not appear possible that the deficiencies identified herein can be cured 

by amending the complaint, Petitioner is not entitled to leave to amend prior to dismissal 

of the entire action. See Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1126, 1131 (9th Cir. 2000) (en 

banc).

In an appropriate case a habeas petition may be construed as a Section 1983 

complaint. Wilwording v. Swenson, 404 U.S. 249, 251, 92 S. Ct. 407, 30 L. Ed. 2d 418 

(1971). Although the Court may construe a habeas petition as a civil rights action, it is 

not required to do so. Since the time when the Wilwording case was decided there have 

been significant changes in the law. For instance, the filing fee for a habeas petition is 

five dollars, and if leave to proceed in forma pauperis is granted, the fee is forgiven. For 

civil rights cases, however, the fee is now $400 and under the Prisoner Litigation Reform 

Act the prisoner is required to pay it, even if granted in forma pauperis status, by way of 

deductions from income to the prisoner's trust account. See 28 U.S.C. 1915(b)(1). A 

prisoner who might be willing to file a habeas petition for which he or she would not have 

to pay a filing fee might feel otherwise about a civil rights complaint for which the $400 

fee would be deducted from income to his or her account. Also, a civil rights complaint 

which is dismissed as malicious, frivolous, or for failure to state a claim would count as a 

"strike" under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), which is not true for habeas cases.

In view of these potential pitfalls for Petitioner if the petition were construed as a 

civil rights complaint, the case is DISMISSED without prejudice to Petitioner to present 

the claims in a civil rights complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, rather than a habeas 

Case 1:15-cv-01138-LJO-MJS Document 8 Filed 09/10/15 Page 4 of 5
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

5

petition, which will be assigned a separate civil number. The Clerk of Court shall send 

Petitioner a blank civil rights complaint form along with a copy of this Order.

II. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION

Therefore it is RECOMMENDED that the petition for writ of habeas corpus be 

DISMISSED without prejudice to Petitioner's right to file a civil rights action pursuant to 

42 U.S.C. § 1983.

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District 

Court Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 

(b)(1)(B) and Rule 304 of the Local Rules of Practice for the United States District Court, 

Eastern District of California. Within thirty (30) days after being served with a copy, 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." Replies to the objections shall be served and filed within fourteen 

(14) days (plus three days if served by mail) after service of the objections. The Court 

will then review the Magistrate Judge's ruling pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(c). The 

parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the 

right to appeal the District Court's order. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 839 (9th 

Cir. 2014).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 9, 2015 /s/Michael J. Seng 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:15-cv-01138-LJO-MJS Document 8 Filed 09/10/15 Page 5 of 5