Hull v. Hull et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ALASKA
THOMAS HOWARD HULL,
Petitioner,
vs.
CHANDRA HULL, et al.,
Respondents. 1 Case No. 3:21-cv-00045-RRB
ORDER REGARDING SECTION 2241 PROCEEDINGS
Thomas Howard Hull has filed a Habeas Petition, under 28 U.S.C. § 2241,
claiming the state court is violating his rights in his state civil divorce proceedings.2
The Court takes judicial notice3 that the state court processed a Certificate
of 	Absolute 	Divorce 	or 	Dissolution 	for 	Thomas 	Hull 	and 	Chandra 	Hull 	on
1 The proper respondent in a habeas proceeding is the petitioner’s custodian, not another
party in a state civil case, the state court judge, or a city or state government. See, e.g.,
Rumsfield v. Padilla, 542 U.S. 426, 434–36 (2004). 	However, that issue need not be
more fully addressed in this dismissal.
2 Docket 1; Thomas H. Hull v. Chandra L. Hull, Alaska Superior Court Case No. 3AN-18-
09366CI. After he filed the Petition, the Court issued a Text Order rejecting filings which
“appear to bear fingerprint impressions made in actual blood. A petitioner’s fingerprint(s)
are not necessary for any court filing, and has no legal significance. However, adulterating
a court filing with blood, or any body fluid, creates a health and safety risk for court
personnel.” Docket 3. Mr. Hull has stated that he has not submitted any documents with
fingerprints appearing in actual blood. Docket 6. Therefore, the Court will now consider
and dismiss the Petition.
3 Judicial notice is the “court’s acceptance, for purposes of convenience and without
requiring a party’s proof, of a well-known and indisputable fact. . . .” Black’s Law Dictionary
(11th ed. 2019); see also Foster Poultry Farms v. Alkar-Rapidpak-MP Equip., Inc., 868 F.
Supp. 2d 983, 990 (E.D. Cal. 2012) (“Courts routinely take judicial notice of publicly
available records . . . from other court proceedings.”) (citing Engine Mfrs. Ass’n v. South
Case 3:21-cv-00045-RRB Document 9 Filed 04/02/21 Page 1 of 5

Case 3:21-cv-00045-RRB, Hull v. Hull
Order of Dismissal
Page 2 of 5
December 31, 2020, and the state court records show no filing of an appeal.4
Further, on February 17, 2021, the state court granted Mr. Hull’s Motion for Case
to be Postponed for 90 Days.5 At least part of the case, therefore, appears to be
ongoing.
SCREENING REQUIREMENT
Federal courts have general habeas jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2241.6
Although 	a 	petitioner 	may 	properly 	challenge 	state 	pretrial 	detention 	under
§ 2241,7 this Court is required to “promptly examine” a habeas petition.8 	“If it
plainly appears from the motion, any attached exhibits, and the record of prior
proceedings that the moving party is not entitled to relief, the judge must dismiss
the motion. . . .”9
Coast Air Quality Management Dist., 498 F.3d 1031, 1039 n.2 (9th Cir. 2007) (additional
citation omitted)); Fed. R. Evid. 201.,
4 https://records.courts.alaska.gov/eaccess/searchresults, Hull v. Hull, 3AN-18-09366CI,
https://appellate-records.courts.alaska.gov/CMSPublic/Search/PartyNameSearch.
5 Hull v. Hull, 3AN-18-09366CI.
6 See Magana-Pizano v. INS, 200 F.3d 603, 608 & n.4 (9th Cir. 1999).
7 See Stow v. Murashige, 389 F.3d 880, 885–88 (9th Cir. 2004).
8 Rule 4(b), Rules Governing Section 2255 Proceedings for the United States District
Courts. 	The same procedural rules for 28 U.S.C. § 2254 and § 2255 govern 28 U.S.C.
§ 2241.
9 Id.
Case 3:21-cv-00045-RRB Document 9 Filed 04/02/21 Page 2 of 5

Case 3:21-cv-00045-RRB, Hull v. Hull
Order of Dismissal
Page 3 of 5
In conducting its review of a self-represented litigant’s pleadings, a court
must liberally construe the pleadings and give the petitioner the benefit of the
doubt.10
DISCUSSION
A writ of habeas corpus allows an individual to test the legality of being
detained or held in custody by the government.11 	The writ “is a vital ‘instrument
for the protection of individual liberty’ against government power.”12
Under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, this Court may grant a writ of habeas corpus to a
prisoner “in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United
States.”13 This habeas statute provides federal courts with general habeas corpus
jurisdiction.14 	28 U.S.C. § 2241 is the proper avenue for a state prisoner who
wishes to challenge his state custody without a state criminal judgment.15
10 See Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 342 (9th Cir. 2010) (citing Bretz v. Kelman, 773 F.2d
1026, 1027 n.1 (9th Cir. 1985) (en banc)).
11 Rasul v. Bush, 542 U.S. 466, 474 (2004).
12 Gage v. Chappell, 793 F.3d 1159, 1167 (9th Cir. 2015); quoting Boumediene v. Bush,
553 U.S. 723, 743 (2008).
13 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c)(3).
14 See Magana-Pizano, 200 F.3d at 608 & n.4.
15 Stow, 389 F.3d at 885-88 (quoting White v. Lambert, 370 F.3d 1002, 1006 (9th Cir.
2004) (“By contrast, the general grant of habeas authority in § 2241 is available for
challenges by a state prisoner who is not in custody pursuant to a state court judgment-
for example, a defendant in pre-trial detention or awaiting extradition.”)).
Case 3:21-cv-00045-RRB Document 9 Filed 04/02/21 Page 3 of 5

Case 3:21-cv-00045-RRB, Hull v. Hull
Order of Dismissal
Page 4 of 5
But Mr. Hull has requested that this Court grant relief by ordering as follows:
The administrator to be disbarred for obstruction of justice,
practicing law behind the bench, allowing the defendant full access
[to] property, funds, equipment, marital & non-marital assets totaling
nearly or roughly $500,000.00, which I have received nothing in this
joint marriage. The State of Alaska allowed this obstruction of justice
under administrator Jennifer Henderson of the Superior Court. Order
defendant to repay claimant half of all net worth -- $250,000.00
dollars. 	Reverse 	all 	Judgments 	and 	orders 	by 	this 	administer,
Jennifer Henderson. Restore Claimant equal equity which was stolen
by defendant, thru administrator, under the color of law.16
In this case, Mr. Hull is challenging events occurring in his civil divorce or
dissolution proceedings. 	This Court, however, is not a court of appeals for state
court decisions, and the Court has no jurisdiction to hear such a challenge.17 The
proper court in which to obtain review of a state court decision in such a civil case,
after exhausting available state appellate remedies, is the United States Supreme
Court.18
16 Docket 1 at 7. The Court takes judicial notice that Defendant Jennifer Henderson is a
judge for the Superior Court of the State of Alaska, in the Third Judicial District at
Anchorage. See http://www.ajc.state.ak.us/judges/judgemain.html.
17 See Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Saudi Basic Indus. Corp., 544 U.S. 280, 284 (2005) (Rooker-
Feldman doctrine bars “cases brought by state-court losers complaining of injuries
caused 	by 	state-court 	judgments 	rendered 	before 	the 	district 	court 	proceedings
commenced and inviting district court review … of those judgments”); see also Younger
v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37, 54 (1971) (a federal court cannot interfere with pending state court
criminal proceedings, absent a “showing of bad faith, harassment, or any other unusual
circumstance that would call for equitable relief.”).
18 See 28 U.S.C. § 1257; see also Rooker, 263 U.S. at 416; Feldman, 460 U.S. at 476.
Case 3:21-cv-00045-RRB Document 9 Filed 04/02/21 Page 4 of 5

Case 3:21-cv-00045-RRB, Hull v. Hull
Order of Dismissal
Page 5 of 5
Mr. Hull’s § 2241 Petition in Hull v. Houser, 3:21-cv-00031-SLG-MMS, in
which he challenges his pretrial detention in ongoing state criminal proceedings,
will be addressed separately.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:
1. This case is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.
2. The Clerk of Court is directed to enter Judgment accordingly.
Dated at Anchorage, Alaska, this 2nd day of April, 2021.
/s/ Ralph R. Beistline
RALPH R. BEISTLINE
Senior United States District Judge
Case 3:21-cv-00045-RRB Document 9 Filed 04/02/21 Page 5 of 5