1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ROD ANTHONY HUFF, Case No. CV 21-06993 AB (RAO)

12 Petitioner, MEMORANDUM AND ORDER RE SUMMARY DISMISSAL OF 13 v. PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS AND DENIAL 14 UNITED STATES, OF CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY 15 Respondent. 16 17 I. BACKGROUND 18 On August 27, 2021, Petitioner Rod Anthony Huff, who is proceeding pro se, 19 filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (“Petition”). Dkt. No. 1. The Petition, 20 which is alternatively titled “Criminal Complaint,” alleges that Petitioner has been 21 placed on an “involuntary medication order with the intent to cause death.” Id. at 1. 22 Petitioner seeks a restraining order against Ronald Owen Kaye, the individual he 23 alleges is responsible and also asks that criminal charges be filed. Id. at 2. 24 II. LEGAL STANDARD 25 Under Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States 26 District Courts, the Court may dismiss a petition “[i]f it plainly appears from the 27 petition and any attached exhibits that the petitioner is not entitled to relief in the 28 district court.” 1 III. DISCUSSION 2 “[T]he essence of habeas corpus is an attack by a person in custody upon the 3 legality of that custody, and . . . the traditional function of the writ is to secure release 4 from illegal custody.” Preiser v. Rodriguez,

,

, 36

(1973). Thus, “when a state prisoner is challenging the very fact or 6 duration of his physical imprisonment, and the relief he seeks is a determination that 7 he is entitled to immediate release or a speedier release from that imprisonment, his 8 sole federal remedy is a writ of habeas corpus.”

. 9 Here, Petitioner, who appears to be currently incarcerated at Twin Towers 10 Correctional Facility, is not attacking the legality or duration of any confinement. 11 Because there is no claim before the Court that Petitioner is in custody in violation 12 of federal law, the Court cannot entertain the Petition as a petition for writ of habeas 13 corpus. 14 If a habeas petition is amenable to conversion into a civil rights claim on its 15 face, meaning that it names the correct defendants and seeks the correct relief, then 16 the Court may construe the Petition to plead a cause of action under

17 after notifying and obtaining informed consent from the petitioner. Nettles v. 18 Grounds,

(9th Cir. 2016) (en banc). 19 To state a claim under Section 1983, a plaintiff must plead that a “person” 20 acting under color of state law caused a deprivation of plaintiff’s federal 21 constitutional rights or limited federal statutory rights. West v. Atkins,

, 22 48,

,

(1988). Here, Petitioner fails to sufficiently 23 allege any facts demonstrating a deprivation of his constitutional rights. Moreover, 24 Ronald Owen Kaye, the only individual named by Plaintiff, is a Los Angeles County 25 Superior Court judge who has judicial immunity from suit for injunctive relief for 26 acts taken in a judicial capacity. See Wolfe v. Strankman,

(9th Cir. 27 2004). 28 /// 1 Accordingly, the Court declines to convert this action into a civil rights 2 || complaint. 3 IV. CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY 4 Under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, a petitioner 5 || seeking to appeal a district court’s final order in a habeas corpus proceeding must 6 || obtain a Certificate of Appealability (“COA”) from the district judge or a circuit 7 || judge.

(c)(1)(A). A COA may issue “only if the applicant has made 8 || a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.”

(c)(2). 9 || “A petitioner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that jurists of reason could 10 || disagree with the district court’s resolution of his constitutional claims[.|” □□□□□□□□□ 11 || v. Cockrell,

,

,

(2003). 12 When the Court dismisses a petition on procedural grounds, it must issue a 13 || COA if the petitioner shows: (1) “that jurists of reason would find it debatable 14 || whether the petition states a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional right’; and 15 || (2) “that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the district court was 16 || correct in its procedural ruling.” Slack v. McDaniel,

,

|} 1595,

(2000). 18 Here, the Court is summarily dismissing the Petition because the Court has 19 || determined that Petitioner has failed to state a cognizable claim for habeas relief. The 20 || Court finds that Petitioner cannot make the requisite showing that jurists of reason 21 || would find it debatable whether the district court was correct in its procedural ruling. 22 V. ORDER 23 Based on the foregoing, IT IS ORDERED THAT: 24 1. The Petition is DISMISSED without prejudice; and 25 2. A Certificate of Appealability is DENIED. 26 || DATED: August 31, 2021 (nd ANDREBIROTTEJR. 28 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE