Thurston

1

2

3

4

5

6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

8

9 ISRAEL MALDONADO RAMIREZ, Case No. 1:26-cv-00282-KES-EPG-HC

10 Petitioner, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION TO

DISMISS FIRST AMENDED PETITION

11 v. FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

12 JENNIFER L. THURSTON, (ECF No. 8)

13 Respondent.

14

15 Petitioner Israel Maldonado Ramirez is proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of

16 habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Given that the petition fails to state a cognizable

17 federal habeas claim, the undersigned recommends that the petition be dismissed.

18 I.

19 BACKGROUND

20 On January 14, 2026, Petitioner filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus. (ECF No. 1.)

21 On January 20, 2026, the Court screened the petition and ordered Petitioner either to file an

22 amended petition or notify the Court that he stands on the petition as written. (ECF No. 5.) On

23 February 5, 2026, Petitioner filed a first amended petition (“FAP”). (ECF No. 8.)

24 II.

25 DISCUSSION

26 Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases requires preliminary review of a

27 habeas petition and allows a district court to dismiss a petition before the respondent is ordered

to file a response, if it “plainly appears from the petition and any attached exhibits that the

1 petitioner is not entitled to relief in the district court.” Rule 4, Rules Governing Section 2254

2 Cases in the United States District Courts, 28 U.S.C. foll. § 2254.

3 A. “In Custody”

4 The federal habeas statute gives the United States district courts

jurisdiction to entertain petitions for habeas relief only from

5 persons who are “in custody in violation of the Constitution or

laws or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c)(3)

6 (emphasis added); see also 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a). We have

interpreted the statutory language as requiring that the habeas

7 petitioner be “in custody” under the conviction or sentence under

attack at the time his petition is filed. See Carafas v. LaVallee, 391

8 U.S. 234, 238, 88 S.Ct. 1556, 1560, 20 L.Ed.2d 554 (1968).

9 Maleng v. Cook, 490 U.S. 488, 490–91 (1989). A person on parole or probation also satisfies the

10 custody requirement. Thornton v. Brown, 757 F.3d 834, 841 (9th Cir. 2013) (“A state parolee is

11 ‘in custody’ for purposes of the federal habeas statute[.]” (citing Jones v. Cunningham, 371 U.S.

12 236, 243 (1963))); Chaker v. Crogan, 428 F.3d 1215, 1219 (9th Cir. 2005) (“[A] petitioner is ‘in

13 custody’ for the purposes of habeas jurisdiction while he remains on probation.”).

14 Here, it appears that Petitioner is not in custody. Petitioner’s address of record is a

15 residential address in Clovis, California. It is also unclear whether Petitioner is on parole or

16 probation. Regardless, even if Petitioner can satisfy the custody requirement, the petition fails to

17 state a cognizable federal habeas claim.

18 B. Cognizability in Federal Habeas Corpus

19 By statute, federal courts “shall entertain an application for a writ of habeas corpus in

20 behalf of a person in custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court only on the ground that he

21 is in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C.

22 § 2254(a). A claim is cognizable in habeas when a prisoner challenges “the fact or duration of his

23 confinement” and “seeks either immediate release from that confinement or the shortening of its

24 duration.” Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 489 (1973).

25 Here, the FAP is rambling and incoherent. It alleges that Governor Newsom has

26 Petitioner’s ticket, manuscript, and blueprint and has made copies of Petitioner’s essence. (ECF

27 No. 8 at 4–5. 1) The FAP fails to state a cognizable claim for federal habeas relief. It does not

1 | allege a violation of the Constitution or federal law, nor does it argue that Petitioner is in custody

2 | in violation of the Constitution or federal law. The grounds for relief consist of convoluted and

3 | incoherent allegations, which are insufficient to state a cognizable claim for federal habeas relief.

4 | As the FAP fails to state a cognizable claim for federal habeas relief, it should be dismissed.

5 Il.

6 RECOMMENDATION

7 Accordingly, the undersigned HEREBY RECOMMENDS that that the first amended

8 | petition for writ of habeas corpus (ECF No. 8) be dismissed.

9 This Findings and Recommendation is submitted to the assigned United States District

10 | Court Judge, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(B) and Rule 304 of the Local

11 | Rules of Practice for the United States District Court, Eastern District of California. Within

12 | THIRTY (30) days after service of the Findings and Recommendation, Petitioner may file

13 | written objections, no longer than fifteen (15) pages, including exhibits, with the Court and

14 | serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate

15 | Judge’s Findings and Recommendation.” The assigned United States District Court Judge will

16 | then review the Magistrate Judge’s ruling pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). The parties are

17 | advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the

18 | District Court’s order. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 839 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Baxter v.

19 | Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)).

20

>] IT IS SO ORDERED.

22| Dated: _ May 15, 2026 [Je heey —

3 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

24

25

26

27

28