Busto v. United States
- Edward Chen
- 3:21-cv-02641
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In C. M. BUSTO v. United States of America, Judge Chen dismissed the habeas petition because it did not meet custody or legal-violation requirements.
C. M. BUSTO's petition was dismissed; the United States of America was the respondent.
What happened
C. M. BUSTO v. United States of America involved a petition asking for release from unlawful custody. C. M. BUSTO filed it without a lawyer and paid the filing fee. The petition claimed broad wrongdoing by agencies and courts and requested a nationwide gathering involving prisoners.
The court found the petition nonsensical and said it did not allege that C. M. BUSTO was in custody in violation of the Constitution, federal laws, or treaties. It also found that the petition did not satisfy the custody requirement for this type of case. Because C. M. BUSTO paid the filing fee and did not appear to be a prisoner, the court did not use the usual fee-waiver or prisoner-screening statutes, but it still conducted the required initial review.
The action was dismissed, and the court did not allow an amended petition because it found amendment would be futile. Judge Edward M. Chen issued the order on May 5, 2021.
The detailed version
- Busto v. United States · No. 3:21-cv-02641
- Edward Chen
- May 5, 2021
Background
C. M. BUSTO filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, meaning a request for court relief from allegedly unlawful custody. The petition was filed without a lawyer, and C. M. BUSTO paid the $5.00 filing fee. The opinion states that C. M. BUSTO was residing in Santa Monica, California and did not appear to be a prisoner.
The petition said it challenged “all punishment in America” based on fraud and deception and asserted claims against agencies and courts in the United States and elsewhere. Its stated grounds included “fraudulence of identity,” “predication upon deception,” and “ignorance is aiding and abetting.” The requested relief included convening all 331 million people, including prisoners, in the Austin area for a national vacation, convention, or employee picnic.
Court’s Analysis
The court described the petition as nonsensical and delusional. It explained that the usual statutes allowing dismissal of legally or factually frivolous cases without a filing fee, or of cases filed by prisoners, did not apply because C. M. BUSTO paid the filing fee and did not appear to be a prisoner. The court nevertheless stated that habeas petitions are subject to initial screening.
Under the governing habeas statutes, a federal court may grant relief only to a person in custody in violation of the Constitution, federal laws, or treaties. The court found that the petition plainly failed to allege such a violation. It also found that the petition failed to satisfy the custody requirement for habeas jurisdiction, meaning the court’s authority to hear the case.
The court concluded that C. M. BUSTO was not entitled to habeas relief based on the allegations presented. It denied leave to amend because it found that amendment would be futile. The opinion also notes that an earlier related habeas action filed by C. M. BUSTO that year had been dismissed, but it does not describe that earlier action in detail.
Disposition
The action was dismissed because the petition failed to satisfy the custody requirement for habeas jurisdiction and failed to state a claim that C. M. BUSTO was in custody in violation of the Constitution, federal laws, or treaties. The court did not grant leave to amend. Judge Edward M. Chen signed the order.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.