1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10 11 CHAKA D. GILBERT, Case No. 5:23-cv-01795-DSF-PD 12 Petitioner, ORDER SUMMARILY 13

DISMISSING PETITION FOR

v. 14 WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

COALINGA STATE HOSPITAL, AND DENYING CERTIFICATE

15

OF APPEALABILITY

16 Respondent. 17 18

19 On August 31, 2023, Chaka D. Gilbert (“Petitioner”), a civil detainee 20 housed at Coalinga State Hospital, filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus 21 (“Petition”) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. For the reasons stated herein, the 22 Court finds that the Petition should be dismissed. 23 I. Duty to Screen 24 Rule 4 of the Rules Governing § 2254 Cases requires the Court to conduct a preliminary review of the Petition. Pursuant to Rule 4, the Court 25 must summarily dismiss a petition “[i]f it plainly appears from the face of the 26 petition . . . that the petitioner is not entitled to relief in the district court.” 27 Rule 4 of the Rules Governing 2254 Cases; see also Local Rule 72-3.2. 28 1 II. The Petition Should Be Dismissed 2 The Court has reviewed the Petition and finds that it is facially 3 deficient and should be dismissed. As an initial matter, the Petition is 4 essentially unintelligible, and Petitioner fails to articulate any legal claims for 5 relief or the factual basis for those claims. Petitioner is civilly committed to 6 Coalinga State Hospital pursuant to a state court judgment. A petitioner in 7 custody pursuant to the judgment of a state court may challenge his 8 confinement “only on the ground that he is in custody in violation of the 9 Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254; see 10 also Rule 1 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. Petitioner fails to set 11 forth a constitutional basis for challenging his confinement. Accordingly, he 12 fails to state a cognizable claim for habeas relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 13 Petitioner has also failed to demonstrate that he has exhausted his 14 state remedies as to any claim that he is in state custody in violation of 15 federal law. Federal habeas relief may not be granted unless Petitioner has exhausted the remedies available in the state courts. 28 U.S.C. 16 § 2254(b)(1)(A). A petitioner can satisfy the exhaustion requirement by 17 providing the highest state court with a full and fair opportunity to consider 18 each claim before presenting it to the federal court. O’Sullivan v. Boerckel, 19 526 U.S. 838, 845 (1999); Duncan v. Henry, 513 U.S. 364, 365 (1995); Picard v. 20 Connor, 404 U.S. 270, 276 (1971). As a matter of comity, a federal court will 21 not entertain a habeas corpus petition unless the petitioner has exhausted the 22 available state judicial remedies on every ground presented in the petition. 23 Rose v. Lundy, 455 U.S. 509, 518-22 (1982). Petitioner has not met his burden 24 of demonstrating that he has exhausted available state remedies. See 25 Cartwright v. Cupp, 650 F.2d 1103, 1104 (9th Cir. 1981).1 26

27 1 Petitioner has also failed to name a proper respondent. If Petitioner chooses to file 28 another habeas action in the future, he must name as the respondent the warden or 1 III. Dismissal without Prejudice is Appropriate 2 This is at least the tenth habeas petition filed by Petitioner in this 3 Court.2 All of the prior petitions were facially deficient. The first four 4 petitions were dismissed initially with leave to amend and ultimately were 5 dismissed without prejudice for failure to prosecute and/or failure to comply 6 with a court order because Petitioner did not file an amended petition. The 7 next five petitions were summarily dismissed without prejudice in light of 8 Petitioner’s longstanding pattern of filing defective petitions. Given this 9 pattern and the absence of a cognizable federal habeas claim in the instant 10 Petition, the Court finds that affording leave to amend would be futile and 11 dismissal without prejudice is appropriate. 12 IV. Certificate of Appealability 13 Pursuant to Rule 11 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 cases, the 14 Court “must issue or deny a certificate of appealability when it enters a final 15 order adverse to the applicant.” The Court has found that the Petition should be dismissed without prejudice. For the reasons stated above, the Court 16 concludes that Petitioner has not made a substantial showing of the denial of 17 a constitutional right, as is required to support the issuance of a certificate of 18 appealability. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). 19

20

21 22 also Rumsfeld v. Padilla, 542 U.S. 426, 436 (2004); Rule 2(a) of the Rules Governing 23 Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts and the Advisory Committee Notes thereto. The Ninth Circuit has held that the failure to name the 24 correct respondent destroys personal jurisdiction. See Ortiz-Sandoval v. Gomez, 81 25 F.3d 891, 894 (9th Cir. 1996); Stanley v. California Supreme Court, 21 F.3d 359, 360 (9th Cir. 1994). 26 2 Case No. 5:12-cv-01446-DSF-JEM; Case No. 5:17-cv-00855-DSF-JEM; Case No. 27 5:17-cv-01105-DSF-JEM; Case No. 5:18-cv-01055-DSF-JEM; Case No. 5:19-cv-00448- 28 DSF-JEM; Case No. 5:19-cv-00502-DSF-JEM; Case No. 5:19-cv-00756-DSF-JEM; |v. ORDER 2 Based on the foregoing, IT IS ORDERED THAT: (1) the Petition is 3 || dismissed without prejudice; and (2) a certificate of appealability is denied. 4 5 | DATED: 9/15/2023

7 HON. DALES. FISCHER □□ g UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28