1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 EASTERN DIVISION 11 MKITARYAN, GAIK ) Case No. 5:19-cv-02214-PSG-JDE ) 12 Petitioner, ) ) ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY 13 v. ) ) THE PETITION SHOULD NOT BE 14 WILLIAM P. BARR, etc., et al., ) ) DISMISSED ) 15 Respondents. ) ) 16 ) ) 17

18 On November 19, 2019, the Court received a “Petition for Writ of 19 Habeas Corpus 28 U.S.C. § 2241” by Mkitaryan, Gaik (“Petitioner”) who 20 alleges he is being detained unlawfully by United States Immigration and 21 Customs Enforcement at a facility in Adelanto, California. Dkt. 1 (“Petition” 22 or “Pet.”). The Petition was not signed under penalty of perjury and was not 23 supported by payment of the required $5 filing fee or a request to proceed in 24 forma pauperis. 25 A habeas petition brought under

is subject to the same 26 screening requirements that apply to habeas petitions brought under 28 U.S.C. 27 § 2254. See Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District 28 Courts (“Habeas Rules”), Rule 1(b) (providing that district courts may apply 1 the Habeas Rules to habeas petitions that are not brought under 28 U.S.C. 2 § 2254). Accordingly, a district court “must promptly examine” the petition 3 and, “[i]f it plainly appears from the petition . . . that the petitioner is not 4 entitled to relief,” the “judge must dismiss the petition.” Habeas Rule 4; Mayle 5 v. Felix,

(2005). 6 Habeas petitions must be “signed under penalty of perjury by the movant 7 or by a person authorized to sign it for the movant.” Habeas Rules, Rule 8 2(b)(5). Habeas Rules 2(c), 4, and 5(b) require a statement of all grounds for 9 relief and the facts supporting each ground; further, the petition should state 10 facts that point to a real possibility of constitutional error and show the 11 relationship of the facts to the claim. Habeas Rule 4, Advisory Committee 12 Notes, 1976 Adoption; Mayle,

; O'Bremski v. Maass,

(9th Cir. 1990) (quoting Blackledge v. Allison,

, 75 n.7 14 (1977)). Allegations in a petition that are vague, conclusory, palpably 15 incredible, or unsupported by a statement of specific facts, are insufficient to 16 warrant relief, and are subject to summary dismissal. Jones v. Gomez,

(9th Cir. 1995); James v. Borg,

(9th Cir. 1994). 18 Here, the Court makes no findings regarding the sufficiency of the 19 allegations in the Petition other than to note that the Petition is not signed 20 under penalty of perjury. As a result, the Petition is insufficient under Rule 21 2(b)(5) of the Habeas Rules and therefore subject to dismissal. 22 In addition, Petitioner did not pay the $5 filing fee for a federal habeas 23 petition and alternatively did not file an application to proceed without 24 prepayment of the filing fee as required by

. Absent payment 25 of the filing fee or authorization to proceed in forma pauperis, the action 26 cannot proceed. 27 28 * * * * 1 Petitioner is therefore ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE why this action 2 ||should not be dismissed by filing a written response by no later than thirty (30) 3 ||days from the date of this Order which sets forth any valid legal and/or factual 4 ||reasons why the Petition should not be dismissed for the foregoing 5 || deficiencies. 6 Instead of filing a written response to the matters addressed in this 7 || Order, Petitioner may comply with this Order by filing both of the following 8 || within thirty (30) days from the date of this Order: 9 1. A First Amended Petition that complies with

10 and the Habeas Rules by, among other things, being signed under 11 penalty of perjury (the Clerk is directed to include a blank copy of 12 the Court’s approved Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus by a 13 Person in Federal Custody (

); and 14 2. A properly prepared, signed, and supported Request to Proceed In 15 Forma Pauperis using this Court’s approved Form CV-69P, a 16 blank copy of which has already been sent to Petitioner (see Dkt. 17 2-1). 18 The Court warns Petitioner that failure to timely file a compliant 19 ||response to this Order will result in a recommendation that this action be 20 || dismissed without prejudice for the reasons explained above and for failure 21 ||to prosecute and comply with Court orders. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). 22 IT IS SO ORDERED. 23 24 ||Dated: November 25, 2019 ye de SP AG 26 27 JOHN D. EARLY 38 United States Magistrate Judge