1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 C. M. BUSTO, Case No. 21-cv-02641-EMC

8 Petitioner, ORDER OF DISMISSAL 9 v.

10 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 11 Respondent.

12 13 14 Chad Michael Busto, currently residing in Santa Monica, California, filed a pro se petition 15 for writ of habeas corpus. His petition for writ of habeas corpus is now before the Court for 16 review pursuant to

and Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the 17 United States District Courts. 18 The petition for writ of habeas corpus is nonsensical. Mr. Busto alleges that he is 19 challenging “all punishment in America because of FRAUD & PREDICATION upon deception 20 (Federal Offenses).” Docket No. 1 at 1. He reports that he is in “every prison in America & on 21 Earth” and has claims against “all agencies & courts in America & all over the world.”

. 22 As his first ground for relief, he alleges “fraudulence of identity,” and his supporting facts consist 23 of this statement: “Our languages’ (including American English) ability to deny reality has 24 confused us as humans throughout our history. Because we learn language as children it is hard 25 for us to understand the inconsistencies even though we feel them.”

. The second and third 26 grounds for relief for “predication upon deception” and “ignorance is aiding and abetting” are 27 equally nonsensical.

. In the “Request for Relief” section, Mr. Busto asks the Court to 1 2024’s election (all 331 million people, including all prisoners) . . . [to] convene in the Austin area 2 for a National vacation/convention/employee picnic. All our prisoners (fed/state/jail/immigration/ 3 mental hospital) can be there if necessary in leg chains and handcuffs.”

. 4 The petition is delusional. Normally, a delusional petition would be dismissed under the in 5 forma pauperis statute,

, or the prisoner litigation screening statute,

1915A, which accord judges “not only the authority to dismiss a claim based on an indisputably 7 meritless legal theory, but also the unusual power to pierce the veil of the complaint's factual 8 allegations and dismiss those claims whose factual contentions are clearly baseless.” Denton v. 9 Hernandez,

(1992) (quoting Neitzke v. Williams,

(1989)); see 10 also Andrews v. King,

(9th Cir. 2005) (a case “is frivolous if it is ‘of little weight or 11 importance: having no basis in law or fact’”). Mr. Busto paid the $5.00 filing fee and does not 12 appear to be a prisoner; his petition thus cannot be dismissed under the in forma pauperis statute 13 (§ 1915) or the prisoner litigation screening statute (§ 1915A). But that does not necessarily mean 14 he can go forward with his nonsensical petition, as all petitions for writ of habeas corpus are 15 subject to initial screening. 16 The Court may entertain a petition for writ of habeas corpus “in behalf of a person in 17 custody pursuant to the judgment of a State only on the ground that he is in custody in violation of 18 the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.”

(a); see also 28 U.S.C. 19 § 2241(c)(3) (prisoner not in state custody may obtain writ if he “is in custody in violation of the 20 Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States”). A district court considering an application 21 for a writ of habeas corpus shall “award the writ or issue an order directing the respondent to show 22 cause why the writ should not be granted, unless it appears from the application that the applicant 23 or person detained is not entitled thereto.”

. 24 Here, the petition plainly fails to allege that Mr. Busto is in custody in violation of the 25 Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States. See Carafas v. LaVallee,

, 238 26 (1968) (federal writ of habeas corpus is only available to persons “in custody” at the time the 27 petition is filed; the requirement is jurisdictional). The petition also fails to allege a violation of 1 obvious that Mr. Busto is not entitled to the writ of habeas corpus on the allegations in the 2 petition. Leave to amend will not be granted because it would be futile: the theory espoused by 3 Mr. Busto simply does not amount to him being in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws 4 or treaties of the United States. (The Court notes that this is the second habeas action filed by Mr. 5 Busto this year alleging a nonsensical theory of relief. His earlier case also was dismissed. See 6 Busto v. United States, No. 21-cv-1553 EMC.) 7 This action is DISMISSED because the petition fails to satisfy the custody requirement for 8 habeas jurisdiction and fails to state a claim that Mr. Busto is in custody in violation of the 9 Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States. 10 11 IT IS SO ORDERED. 12 13 Dated: May 5, 2021 14 15 ______________________________________ EDWARD M. CHEN 16 United States District Judge 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27