Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_09-cv-01707/USCOURTS-caed-1_09-cv-01707-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Tahee Abd Rasheed
Petitioner
United States
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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

TAHEE ABD’ RASHEED, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

v. )

)

)

UNITED STATES, )

)

)

Respondent. )

 )

1:09-cv-01707-JLT HC

ORDER DISMISSING PETITION FOR WRIT

OF HABEAS CORPUS

ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT TO

ENTER JUDGMENT AND CLOSE FILE

Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition styled as being pursuant to

the All Writs Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a). On October 22, 2009, Petitioner filed his written consent

to the jurisdiction of the United States Magistrate Judge for all purposes. (Doc. 3).

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

On September 28, 2009, Petitioner filed the instant petition. (Doc. 1). The All Writs Act

provides that “all courts . . . may issue all writs necessary and appropriate in aid of their

respective jurisdictions and agreeable to the usages and principles of law.” 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a). 

It is not itself a source of jurisdiction. Lights of America, Inc. v. United States District Court,

130 F.3d 1369, 1370 (9 Cir. 1997). However, liberally construing the document, the Court has

th

considered it a petition for writ of habeas corpus, since it apparently involves a state criminal

conviction.

Case 1:09-cv-01707-JLT Document 8 Filed 01/21/10 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

On January 8, 2010, after conducting a preliminary screening of the petition, the Court

ordered Petitioner to file an amended petition because the original handwritten petition failed to

provide the Court with even the most basic information, e.g., the date of conviction or the court

in which the conviction occurred, as well as the factual and legal basis for Petitioner’s claims and

Petitioner’s efforts to exhaust those claims in state court. (Doc. 6). As part of the Court’s order,

the Clerk of the Court sent Petitioner a form for filing petitions pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 

On January 19, 2010, Petitioner filed his amended petition on the form provided by the

Clerk. (Doc. 7). Unfortunately, for screening purposes, the amended petition provides no further

information. Regarding his conviction, sentence, and sentencing court, Petitioner indicates, “I

don’t know.” In response to other queries about his state conviction, he indicates, “I don’t know

I was not present during any proceeding.” (Doc. 7, p. 1). The portions of the form soliciting

information regarding Petitioner’s direct appeal and/or other state habeas corpus petitions is

entirely blank. 

Petitioner’s two claims are as follows:

1. “I started out on parole violation 12 years ago and haven’t seen daylight since, I

have appeal everything I could think of appealing with no results. I haven’t

committed any offense, nor have I been found guilty of any offense.”

2. “Mistaken identification in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment, False

Imprisonment without any procedural safeguards.”

(Doc. 7, pp. 3-4). 

DISCUSSION

The basic scope of habeas corpus is prescribed by statute. Subsection (c) of Section 2241

of Title 28 of the United States Code provides that habeas corpus shall not extend to a prisoner

unless he is “in custody in violation of the Constitution.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a) states that the

federal courts shall entertain a petition for writ of habeas corpus only on the ground that the

petitioner “is in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.

See also, Rule 1 to the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Court.

The Supreme Court has held that “the essence of habeas corpus is an attack by a person in

Case 1:09-cv-01707-JLT Document 8 Filed 01/21/10 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

custody upon the legality of that custody . . .” Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 484 (1973).

Furthermore, in order to succeed in a petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, Petitioner must

demonstrate that the adjudication of his claim in state court resulted in a decision that was

contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, as

determined by the Supreme Court of the United States; or resulted in a decision that was based

on an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented in the State court

proceeding. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1), (2). 

Moreover, conclusory allegations which are not supported by a statement of specific facts

do not warrant habeas relief. James v. Borg, 24 F.3d 20, 26 (9th Cir. 1994). Notice pleading is

insufficient; Petitioner must state sufficient facts. See id. (citing Blackledge v. Allison ,431 U.S.

63, 75 n. 7 (1977)). 

Here, Petitioner has failed to meet his burden of identifying either the factual basis for his

two claims. The Court has been given no information regarding the factual context for

Petitioner’s claims that he is being unlawfully held and that he has been the subject of “false

identification.” 

In addition, the fact that Petitioner has failed to provide the Court with such basic

information strains the Court’s credulity, given Petitioner’s extensive history of filing cases in

this Court. The Court has accessed its own electronic case management system and determined

that Petitioner, under the name Tahee Abd Rasheed, has filed eighteen cases in this Court,

including four habeas corpus petitions. Under the name Tahee Abd’ Rasheed, he has filed

another eight cases, including three more habeas corpus petitions. Under the name Tahee

Abdullah Rasheed, Petitioner has filed two additional prisoner cases, for a total of twenty-eight

cases. With the exception of the instant case, all of Petitioner’s habeas corpus petitions have

been dismissed. In case no. 1:09-cv-00415-LJO-GSA, the petition was dismissed upon a finding

that Petitioner’s claims were “plainly frivolous.” In case nos. 1:09-cv-00416-OWW-SMS and

1:09-cv–1216-DLB, the petitions, which were brought as writs of coram nobis, were dismissed

because such a writ is applicable only to federal convictions. Case no. 1:09-cv-01539-SMS was

dismissed for Petitioner’s failure to follow the Court’s orders. 

Case 1:09-cv-01707-JLT Document 8 Filed 01/21/10 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

In reviewing Petitioner’s litigation history in this Court, the Court has also examined the

various habeas corpus petitions filed by Petitioner in the above-mentioned cases. In striking

contrast to the instant amended petition, in other cases Petitioner appears to have little difficulty

in remembering and disclosing the pertinent facts and circumstances of his incarceration. 

Under such circumstances, Petitioner’s purported inability to “remember” vital facts

regarding his incarceration in preparing his amended petition in this case is simply not credible. 

Petitioner is a veteran of habeas and civil rights litigation in this Court and his refusal to provide

the Court with basic information and cognizable claims amply justifies dismissal of the instant

petition for failure to state a claim upon which habeas relief can be granted. 

 ORDER

Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The amended petition (Doc. 7), is DISMISSED for failure to state a claim upon

which habeas relief can be granted; and,

2. The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to enter judgment and close the file.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 21, 2010 /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston 

9j7khi UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

Case 1:09-cv-01707-JLT Document 8 Filed 01/21/10 Page 4 of 4