FILED

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUN ‘ 5 2015 FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA Clerk. U.S. Dlstrlct & Bankruptcy Courts for the District of Columbla Jermaine J. Dunlap, ) I u ) Petltlonel‘, ; Case; 1:15—cv—00837 V ) Assigned To : Unassolglged ' Assign. Date : 6I5I2 Superior Court 3 Description: Habeas corPUS/ZZSS (G) of the City of San Bernardino, ) ) Respondent. ) MEMORANDUM OPINION

Petitioner is a California state prisoner who has submitted a form “Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus,” which is comprised of incoherent statements. “Similar to the plaintiff” 5 prior actions, this action is difficult to comprehend.” Dunlap v. Dep ’t of Review Board, No. 14-0145,

(D.D.C. Jan. 30, 2014), citing Dunlap v. Board ofPrison Hearings, No. 1:08- cv-1770,

, at *3 (ED. Cal. Jun. 22, 2009) (dismissing amended habeas petition presenting “the same incomprehensible allegations [stated] on three separate [prior]

occasions”). Dismissal is warranted first because the named court is not the proper respondent to

address the habeas petition. See Rumsfeld v. Padilla, 542 US. 426, 439-42 (2004) (applying

“immediate custodian rule”). Second, unlike the requirements for pleading a civil action, “Rule 2(c) of the Rules Governing Habeas Corpus Cases requires a more detailed statement. The habeas rule instructs the petitioner to ‘specify all the grounds for relief available to him’ and to

‘state the facts supporting each ground.’ ” Mayle v. Felix, 545 US. 644, 649 (2005) (footnote

and internal alteration omitted). The lodged petition co where near satisfying the habeas

pleading standard. A separate Order of dismi this Memorandum Opinion.

Date: Maémfi

nited tates District Judge