Allah v. Holbrook

2 FILED IN THE U.S. DISTRICT COURT 3 EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON Nov 18, 2021 SEAN F. MCAVOY, CLERK 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON ALLAH@, 10 No. 4:21-CV-05120-SAB SP/C, 5% Nation of Islam Petitioner, ORDER TO PROCEED IN v. FORMA PAUPERIS AND 13 ORDER SUMMARILY DISMISSING PETITION DONALD R. HOLBROOK, Sup of WSP Respondent.

19 On August 31, 2021, Petitioner, a prisoner at the Washington State Penitentiary filed a pro se document titled, “‘Emergency’ Petition for A Writ Of Habeas Corpus, DOC Is Holding Allah© with Judgments That Are Not Signed And No Warrant Of Commitments In Violation of State Law UCC/RCW 62A.3- 401 Signature,” without a completed application to proceed in forma pauperis or payment of the $5.00 filing fee. ECF No. 1. On November 8, 2021, Petitioner filed a document titled, “AMENDED Petition For Writ Of Habeas Corpus, Violation Of U.S. Const. Amend. 13, § 1. ‘Neither Slavery Nor Involuntary Servitude, Except As A Punishment For Crime Whereof The Party Shall Have Been Duly Convicted . . .’ Allah© Has Never Been Convicted!!! King Co. Has No Warrant Of Commitments:” along with a five-page Supplement, ECF Nos. 7 and 8. Also on that date, Petitioner sought leave to proceed in forma pauperis. ECF No. 9.

3 Because it appears that Petitioner lacks sufficient funds to prosecute this action, his request to proceed in forma pauperis is GRANTED and this action may proceed without payment of the filing fee.

6 Generally, an amended pleading will supersede the original and render it without legal effect. Lacey v. Maricopa Cty., 693 F.3d 896, 927 (9th Cir. 2012).

8 Therefore, the Court will proceed with the Amended Petition received on November 8, 2021, ECF No. 7, as the operative Petition in this case.

10 Petitioner contends that he is being illegally restrained in violation of the Thirteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution, claiming there is no valid Warrant of Commitment and persons within the Department of Corrections have “made the name Allah Allah.” ECF No. 7 at 1–2. He claims that he is being held fraudulently. Id. at 2–4.

15 Petitioner challenges Franklin County Case No. 12-1-50324-8. Id. at 5; ECF No. 8 at 1. This is the thirteenth habeas action Petitioner has filed in this District since 2010. In 2012, Petitioner began challenging Franklin County Case No. 12-1- 50324-8. See Allah v. Long, No. 2:12-CV-00549-RMP (Jan. 30, 2013) (challenge to Franklin County Superior Court case number 12-1-50324-8 dismissed without prejudice for failure to exhaust); Allah v. McGrath, No. 2:13-CV-00355-JTR (Dec. 16, 2013) (dismissed pursuant to Rule 3(a), Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts, and 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a) for failure to pay applicable filing fee or provide a completed in forma pauperis application); Allah v. Holbrook, No. 4:15-CV-05100-SAB (Feb. 24, 2016) (dismissed without prejudice for failure to present a statement showing an entitlement to relief or that claims had been exhausted); Allah v. Holbrook, No. 4:16-CV-05045-SAB (Sept. 1, 2016) (dismissed without prejudice for failing to state any cognizable grounds for federal habeas relief regarding Judgment and Sentence in Franklin County cause number 12-1-50324-8, and rejecting Petitioner’s contentions regarding the name(s) under which he is being detained as not warranting federal habeas relief); Allah v. Holbrook, No. 4:19-CV-05208-SAB (Nov. 21, 2019) (denying with prejudice Petitioner’s repeated arguments regarding the name(s) under which he is being detained and his untenable challenges to his federal criminal conviction); Allah v. Haggerty, et al., No. 4:19-CV-05279-SAB (dismissed pursuant to Rule 3(a), Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts, and 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a) for failure to pay applicable filing fee or provide a completed in forma pauperis application); Allah v. Holbrook, No. 4:20-CV-5018-SAB (May 11, 2020) (summarily dismissing Habeas Action with prejudice, declining to entertain Petitioner’s arguments regarding the names(s) under which he is being detained); Allah v. Holbrook, No. 4:20-CV-5084-SAB (July 14, 2020) (summarily dismissing Habeas Action with prejudice, declining to entertain Petitioner’s arguments regarding the names(s) under which he is being detained) (Ninth Circuit denied Certificate of Appealability on February 9, 2021, No. 20-35646).

16 Petitioner’s repeated assertions regarding the name(s) under which he is detained do not warrant federal habeas relief, and his contentions regarding his Franklin County conviction in case No. 12-1-50324-8 have been previously rejected by the Court. See Allah v. Holbrook, No. 4:16-CV-05045-SAB. The Court declines to entertain Petitioner’s arguments further.

21 Therefore, IT IS ORDERED the Petition, ECF No. 7, is DENIED with prejudice.

23 // // // // // // 1 IT IS SO ORDERED. The Clerk of Court is directed to enter this Order, enter judgment, and forward a copy to Petitioner. The Clerk of Court shall close the file. The Court certifies that pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), an appeal □□□□□ this decision could not be taken in good faith, and there is no basis upon which to issue a certificate of appealability.28 U.S.C. § 2253(c); Fed. R. App. P. 22(b).

DATED this 18th day of November 2021.

1 o Srckeyld thar i Stanley A. Bastian l Chief United States District Judge ORNER TH PROACTEN IN FNPMA DATIPEPIC ANN OAPRNEP