1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 KANTEE W. JACOBS, Case No. 21-cv-07846-WHO (PR)

Petitioner, 8 ORDER DIRECTING PETITIONER v. 9 TO FILE A HABEAS PETITION ON OR BEFORE APRIL 4, 2022 10 TRENT ALLEN,

Respondent. 11

12 13 INTRODUCTION 14 Because Kantee W. Jacobs seeks release from custody, his

15 complaint will be construed as a habeas petition filed under

. On or 16 before April 4, 2022, Jacobs is directed to file a petition on the Court’s form, a copy of 17 which will be sent to him. In it, he must give specific information about the date of his 18 conviction and why he believes he is entitled to release. 19 DISCUSSION 20 Jacobs filed a

complaint against the Governor of California, 21 Gavin Newsom, and the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. He 22 asserts in a conclusory fashion that he is entitled to release from custody because 23 Proposition 57 constitutes an ex post facto law and he has been denied due process. 24 (Compl., Dkt. No. 1 at 3.) Jacobs has not provided any specific facts, such as the date of 25 his conviction, his putative release date, or how he has calculated his release date. 26 Because Jacobs seeks release from custody, this action will be regarded as a habeas 27 petition filed under

. See Badea v. Cox,

(9th Cir. 1 confinement). The Clerk is directed to change the Nature of Suit Code to 530; change 2 “Plaintiff” to “Petitioner” and “Defendant” to “Respondent”; and otherwise modify the 3 docket to reflect that this is a habeas action brought under

. 4 This Court may entertain a petition for writ of habeas corpus “in behalf of a person 5 in custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court only on the ground that he is in 6 custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. 7 § 2254(a). A district court considering an application for a writ of habeas corpus shall 8 “award the writ or issue an order directing the respondent to show cause why the writ 9 should not be granted, unless it appears from the application that the applicant or person 10 detained is not entitled thereto.”

. Summary dismissal is appropriate 11 only where the allegations in the petition are vague or conclusory, palpably incredible, or 12 patently frivolous or false. See Hendricks v. Vasquez,

(9th Cir. 1990). 13 As grounds for federal habeas relief, Jacobs alleges Proposition 57 constitutes an ex 14 post facto law and that he is being deprived of due process. Because his allegations are 15 conclusory, Jacobs must provide the Court with specific facts demonstrating that he is 16 entitled to relief. Such facts must include the date and place of his conviction, what release 17 date he believes is the correct one, and exactly how the application of Proposition 57 to his 18 sentence is unconstitutional. 19 CONCLUSION 20 The complaint is DISMISSED. On or before April 4, 2022, Jacobs shall file a 21 habeas petition on this Court’s form in which he provides specific facts demonstrating that 22 he is entitled to release from custody. Failure to file a petition by that date will result in 23 the dismissal of this action under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) for failure to 24 prosecute. The petition must include the caption and civil case number used in this order 25 (21-07846 WHO (PR)), and must appear on this Court’s form. 26 It is petitioner’s responsibility to prosecute this case. He must keep the Court 27 informed of any change of address by filing a separate paper with the Clerk headed 1 || fashion or ask for an extension of time to do so. Failure to comply will result in the 2 || dismissal of this action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). 3 Jacobs’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis is GRANTED. (Dkt. No. 4.) 4 The Clerk is directed to change the Nature of Suit Code to 530; change “Plaintiff” 5 || to “Petitioner” and “Defendant” to “Respondent”; and otherwise modify the docket to 6 || reflect that this is a habeas action brought under

. 7 The Clerk shall also modify the docket to reflect that Trent Allen, the warden of the 8 || prison in which petitioner is housed, is the sole respondent in this action. Allen is the sole 9 || proper respondent in this action, as he is the custodian having day-to-day control over 10 || petitioner, the only person who can produce “the body” of the petitioner. Brittingham v. 11 United States,

(9th Cir. 1992) (quoting Guerra v. Meese,

(D.C. Cir. 1986) ). 5 13 The Clerk shall terminate all pending motions. IT IS SO ORDERED. || Dated: February 23, 2022 | ( . \f CE

‘6 WILLIAM H. ORRICK 17 United States District Judge 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28