1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

10

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA-WESTERN DIVISION

11 12 ALAN DOUGLAS, ) Case No. CV 20-07524-RSWL (AS) 13 ) Petitioner, ) ORDER OF DISMISSAL 14 ) ) 15 v. ) ) 16 Superior Ct of California ) for Los Angeles County, ) 17 ) Respondent. ) 18 ) 19 20 I. BACKGROUND 21 22 On August 18, 2020, Alan Douglas (“Petitioner”), proceeding 23 pro se, filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person in 24 State Custody pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (“Petition”). (Docket 25 Entry No. 1). 26 27 The Petition asserts the following grounds for federal habeas 28 relief: (1) “Trial court [TC] and TJ ERR in Judgments with gross 1 1 bias and prejudice.”; (2) “TJ let Opposition to use False 2 Statements when issued Judgments against Petitioner.”; (3) “TC 3 failed to reassign[] the Consolidated Cases BC657529/BC696685 to 4 Settlement Court.”; (4) “TC ERR[S] when rejected Default Judgment 5 in favor of Petitioner.”; and (5) “TC get[s] free pass for 6 tortfeasors and denied Petitioner’s right for Jury Trial and 7 Compensation.” (Petition at 5-6, Attachments). 8 9 A Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus can only be filed by a 10 petitioner who is in state custody and contends that such custody 11 is in violation of the Constitution, laws or treaties of the 12 United States. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(c). Here, Petitioner has failed 13 to allege he is in state custody and that such custody is in 14 violation of the Constitution, laws or treaties of the United 15 States. 16 17 Moreover, the claims alleged in the Petition are 18 incomprehensible, vague and conclusory. See Hendrix v. Vasquez, 19 908 F.2d 490, 491 (9th Cir. 1990) (“Summary dismissal is 20 appropriate only where the allegations in the petition are ‘vague 21 [or] conclusory” or palpably incredible . . . ‘or patently 22 frivolous or false.’”)(citations omitted). Petitioner has also 23 failed to allege any claim(s), much less any the claims which go 24 to the fact or duration of his confinement. See Preiser v. 25 Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 489 (1973). 26 27 Finally, since Petitioner has failed to name the proper 28 respondent, the name of the state officer having custody over 2 Petitioner (i.e., prison warden), see Stanley v. California Supreme Court, 21 F.3d 359, 360 (9th Cir. 1984); Rule 2(a), Rules 3]]Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States Supreme Court, Court lacks jurisdiction over the Petition. See Smith v. 5}}Idaho, 392 F.3d 350, 352-55 (9th Cir. 2004). 6 7 Because Petitioner does not state a claim for relief under U.S.C. § 2254, dismissal of the Petition is warranted. 9 10 II. ORDER 11 12 ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that the Petition be dismissed without prejudice. 14 15 LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY. 16

DATED: 8/21/2020

18 19 s/ RONALD S.W. LEW

RONALD S.W. LEW

20 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 21 Presented by: 22 23 /s/

ALKA SAGAR

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

25 26 27 28