1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 CLIFFORD CHAUN LOYER, Case No. 2:23-cv-05131-FWS-RAO

12 Petitioner,

ORDER OF SUMMARY

13 v. DISMISSAL AND DENIAL OF

CERTIFICATE OF

14 STIRLING PRICE, APPEALABILITY 15 Respondent. 16 17 Petitioner Clifford Chaun Loyer, a California pretrial detainee proceeding pro 18 se, initiated this federal habeas action by filing a handwritten Petition for Writ of 19 Habeas Corpus (“Petition”) on June 22, 2023. Dkt. No. 1. The Court has reviewed 20 the Petition and determines that it fails to state a cognizable claim for federal habeas 21 relief. For the reasons stated below, the Court dismisses the case without prejudice 22 and denies a certificate of appealability. 23 Under Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States 24 District Courts, the Court may dismiss a petition “[i]f it plainly appears from the 25 petition and any attached exhibits that the petitioner is not entitled to relief in the 26 district court.” Because Petitioner is in pre-trial detention, not in custody as the result 27 of a final judgment from a state court, the Petition is properly construed as arising 28 under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. The Rules Governing Section 2254 cases also may be 1 applied to habeas corpus actions filed under section 2241. See Rule 1(b), Rules 2 Governing Section 2254 Cases. 3 A federal court, in conducting habeas review, is limited to deciding whether a 4 state court decision violates the Constitution, laws or treaties of the United States. 28 5 U.S.C. § 2254(a); Swarthout v. Cooke, 562 U.S. 216, 219, 131 S. Ct. 859, 178 6 L.Ed.2d 732 (2011) (per curiam); Estelle v. McGuire, 502 U.S. 62, 67-68, 112 S. Ct. 7 475, 116 L.Ed.2d 285 (1991). Summary dismissal of a habeas action is appropriate 8 where the allegations in the petition are vague or conclusory, palpably incredible, or 9 patently frivolous or false. Hendricks v. Vasquez, 908 F.2d 490, 491 (9h Cir. 1990) 10 (citation omitted). 11 Here, the Court has screened the Petition and finds it is clear from its face that 12 Petitioner is not entitled to habeas relief. Largely unintelligible, the Petition has no 13 identifiable grounds for relief nor does it plead any supporting facts. The Court notes 14 that Petitioner has filed another habeas action, Loyer v. Black, Case No. 2:23-cv- 15 06080 FWS (RAO) (C.D. Cal. filed July 24, 2023), which remains pending. In that 16 separate action, Petitioner is challenging his unlawful detention at Atascadero State 17 Hospital. To the extent Petitioner also wishes to challenge his unlawful detention in 18 the instant action, then it is duplicative of the action in Case No. 2:23-cv-6080 and 19 subject to summary dismissal on the basis of being duplicative. See, e.g., Cato v. 20 United States, 70 F.3d 1103, 1105 n.2 (9th Cir. 1995) (a court has discretion to 21 dismiss a pleading “that merely repeats pending or previously litigated claims”). 22 IT THEREFORE IS ORDERED that this action be summarily dismissed for 23 failure to state a cognizable claim. The pending request to proceed in forma pauperis 24 is denied as moot. 25 Furthermore, because Petitioner has not made a substantial showing of the 26 denial of a constitutional right or that the Court erred in its procedural ruling, 27 Petitioner is not entitled to a certificate of appealability. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2); 28 Fed. R. App. P. 22(b); Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336, 123 S. Ct. 1029, 154 1 || L. Ed.2d 931 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S. Ct. 1595, 146 L. 2 || Ed.2d 542 (2000). 3 4 IT IS SO ORDERED. 5 6 Lo LS /— || Dated: September 26, 2023 Hon. Fred W. Slaughter 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28