Kim Pace-White v. Debra K Johnson

Filing 3

ORDER DISMISSING ACTION WITHOUT PREJUDICE by Judge S. James Otero, (See document for details.) In light of the foregoing, the Court finds it must dismiss Petitioner's "Petition" because it does not raise any justiciable federal h abeas claims and, as such, it does not raise an actual case or controversy for this Court to adjudicate. Nor does it set forth any facts that point to a real possibility of constitutional error. Accordingly, the reference to the magistrate judge is vacated and the action is dismissed without prejudice. The clerk is directed to enter a judgment dismissing the action without prejudice and notify Petitioner. (rla)

1

FILED- SOUTHER I~ DIVISION
CLERK, U.S. DISTRICT COURT

[APR I 0

·--·---·-·~----~]

2
3
4

2013

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
BY s
DEPUTY

5
6

7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9

EASTERN DIVISION

10

11
12

Petitioner,

13

ORDER DISMISSING ACTION
WITHOUT PREJUDICE

v.

14

15

Case No. EDCV 13-589 SJO (AN)

KIM PACE-WHITE,

DEBRA K. JOHNSON, WARDEN,

16

Respondent.

17
18

I. Background

19
20

On April 1, 2013, Kim Pace-White, a state prisoner, submitted a "notice to file

21

petition for writ of habeas corpus by a person in state custody" to the clerk's office, which

22

was construed and filed as a federal habeas petition brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254

23

("Petition"). The Petition does not raise any habeas claims. Instead, it simply notifies the

24

Court that Petitioner has filed a state habeas petition with the California Supreme Court

25

(case no. S209486).
For the reasons discussed below, the action is dismissed without prejudice.

26
27

Ill

28

Ill

II. Discussion

1

2

A.

Standard of Review

3

Habeas petitions brought pursuant to§ 2254 are subject to the Rules Governing

4

Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts, 28 U.S.C. foil. § 2254 ("Habeas

5

Rules") and this Court's Local Rules. The Habeas Rules expressly provide that a district

6

court must promptly examine a § 2254 petition before service and "[I]f it plainly appears

7

from the petition and any attached exhibits that the petitioner is not entitled to relief in

8

the district court, the judge must dismiss the petition and direct the clerk to notify the

9

petitioner." Habeas Rule 4; Mayle v. Felix, 545 U.S. 644, 656, 125 S. Ct. 2562 (2005);

10

see also Local Rule 72-3.2 (authorizing magistrate judge to prepare proposed order for

11

summary dismissal and proposed judgment for district judge if it plainly appears from the

12

face of petition that petitioner is not entitled to relief).
Further, in Felix, the United States Supreme Court emphasized that a § 2254

13

14 petition must provide "a more detailed statement" than a standard civil complaint and
15

"specify all the grounds for relief available to the petitioner [and] state the facts

16

supporting each ground[;]" typical notice pleading under Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(c) is

17

insufficient. Felix, 545 U.S. at 656; see also Habeas Rule 4, Advisory Committee Notes

18

(1976 Adoption) (stating "it is the duty ofthe court to screen out frivolous applications

19

and eliminate the burden that would be placed on the respondent by ordering an

20

unnecessary answer .... In addition, 'notice' pleading is not sufficient, for the petition

21

is expected to state facts that point to a 'real possibility of constitutional error"').

22

B.

Analysis

23

Federal courts are limited in the exercise of their judicial power to "cases" or

24

"controversies." U.S. CONST. Art. III,§ 2. A justiciable case or controversy does not

25

include a dispute of a hypothetical or abstract character. Aetna Life Ins. Co. v. Haworth,

26

300 U.S. 227, 240, 57 S. Ct. 461, 81 L. Ed. 617 ( 193 7). The case or controversy must be

27

definite and concrete. Jd. That is, it must be a real and substantial controversy admitting

28

of specific relief through a decree of a conclusive character. !d. at 241. Courts do not sit
2

1

to decide hypothetical issues or to give advisory opinions. Princeton University v.

2

Schmid, 455 U.S. 100, 102, 102 S. Ct. 867, 70 L. Ed. 2d 855 (1982). Consequently, a

3

court may not toll the statue of limitations with respect to claims not yet filed. United

4

States v. Cook 795 F.2d 987, 994 (Fed. Cir. 1986).

5

In light of the foregoing, the Court finds it must dismiss Petitioner's "Petition"

6

because it does not raise any justiciable federal habeas claims and, as such, it does not

7

raise an actual case or controversy for this Court to adjudicate. Nor does it set forth any

8

facts that point to a real possibility of constitutional error.

9

Accordingly, the reference to the magistrate judge is vacated and the action is

10 dismissed without prejudice. The clerk is directed to enter a judgment dismissing the
11

action without prejudice and notify Petitioner.

12
13

IT IS SO ORDERED.

14
15
16 Dated: April 9,20 13
17

S. JAMES OTERO
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

18
19 Presented by:
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3