United States District Court, District of Columbia
June 5, 2015
Jermaine J. Dunlap, Petitioner,
Superior Court of the City of San Bernardino, Respondent.
EMMET G. SULLIVAN, District Judge.
Petitioner is a California state prisoner who has submitted a form "Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, " which is comprised of incoherent statements. "Similar to the plaintiff's prior actions, this action is difficult to comprehend." Dunlap v. Dep't of Review Board, No. 14-0145, 2014 WL 414156 (D.D.C. Jan. 30, 2014), citing Dunlap v. Board of Prison Hearings, No. 1:08-cv-1770, 2009 WL 1759651, at *3 (E.D. Cal. Jun. 22, 2009) (dismissing amended habeas petition presenting "the same incomprehensible allegations [stated] on three separate [prior] occasions"). Dismissal is warranted first because the named court is not the proper respondent to address the habeas petition. See Rumsfeld v. Padilla, 542 U.S. 426, 439-42 (2004) (applying "immediate custodian rule"). Second, unlike the requirements for pleading a civil action, "Rule 2(c) of the Rules Governing Habeas Corpus Cases requires a more detailed statement. The habeas rule instructs the petitioner to specify all the grounds for relief available to him' and to state the facts supporting each ground.'" Mayle v. Felix, 545 U.S. 644, 649 (2005) (footnote and internal alteration omitted). The lodged petition comes nowhere near satisfying the habeas pleading standard. A separate Order of dismissal accompanies this Memorandum Opinion.