(HC) Dunigan v. Lundy

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA KEVIN W. DUNIGAN, Case No. 2:23-cv-02699-JDP (HC) 12 Petitioner, ORDER 13 v. SCREENING THE PETITION AND OFFERING LEAVE TO AMEND L. LUNDY, ECF No. 1 15 Respondent.

GRANTING APPLICATION TO PROCEED 16 IN FORMA PAUPERIS 17 ECF No. 6 18 DENYING MOTIONS TO EXPEDITE, FOR DUAL CITIZENSHIP, FOR 19 CERTIFICATES OF INNOCENCE, AND FOR CHRIST KINGDOMS ECF Nos. 10, 11, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, & 19 22 Petitioner, a state prisoner, brings this action under section 2254 and attacks a conviction that occurred in 2007. ECF No. 1 at 2. The claim appears beyond the one-year statute of limitations in the Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (“AEDPA”). I will give petitioner one opportunity to amend and explain why his claim should still proceed before I recommend that this action be dismissed. I will also, despite petitioner’s status as a “three- striker” within the meaning of section 1915(g), grant his application to proceed in forma pauperis. ECF No. 6. The Ninth Circuit has held that habeas claims “lie outside the scope of the PLRA.” Washington v. L.A. County Sheriff’s Dep’t, 833 F.3d 1048, 1059 (9th Cir. 2016).

2 Finally, I will deny petitioner’s motions to expedite discovery and for dual citizenship. ECF Nos. 10 & 11. The motion to expedite discovery is premature given that, at this juncture, the petition appears time-barred and unlikely to proceed past screening. The motion for dual citizenship is outside the scope of this action.

6 Under AEDPA, a state prisoner has one year, from the date his conviction is finalized, to file a federal habeas petition attacking that conviction. See Patterson v. Stewart, 251 F.3d 1243, 1245 (9th Cir. 2001). Here, petitioner states that the conviction he is attacking was finalized well over a decade ago, in 2007. ECF No. 1 at 2. Even with tolling, it is difficult to see how his habeas claims could still be timely. Nevertheless, I will give petitioner an opportunity to amend and to explain why his claims should proceed. If he elects to do so, he should take pains to ensure that his claims are intelligible. Beyond appearing time-barred, his petition lacks organization and its specifics are difficult to understand. Lengthy passages, unbroken by paragraph separations or headings, are difficult to parse, and I cannot tell how many or what specific claims are at issue.

16 I will also deny petitioner’s numerous pending motions, including his motions for “a well vetted universal Christ Kingdom” and to invoke United States Citizens. ECF Nos. 16, 17, & 19.

18 A habeas corpus action challenges only the validity of petitioner’s underlying conviction.

19 Similarly, his requests for a “certificate of innocence” are premature and, ultimately—if petitioner succeeds in this case—redundant.

21 Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that: 22 1. Within thirty days of this order’s entry petitioner shall file an amended habeas petition 23 explaining why his claims should proceed. If he fails to do so, I will recommend this 24 action be dismissed.

25 2. The Clerk of Court is directed to send petitioner a section 2254 complaint form with 26 this order.

27 3. Petitioner’s application to proceed in forma pauperis, ECF No. 6, is GRANTED.

1 4. The motions to expedite discovery, ECF No. 10, for dual citizenship, ECF No. 11, for 2 certificates of innocence, ECF Nos. 14, 15, & 16, for a well vetted Christ Kingdom, 3 ECF Nos. 16 & 17, and to invoke any naturalized or nationalized U.S. Citizens, ECF 4 No. 19, are DENIED.

6 IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: _ April 10, 2024 8 JEREMY D. PETERSON 9 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE