Spivey v. McDonald

Filing 7

ORDER Directing Petitioner to File a Signed and Dated Verification of the Petition no Later than Thirty (30) Days after Service of this Order, signed by Magistrate Judge Sheila K. Oberto on 2/20/12. (Verduzco, M)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 W. C. SPIVEY, III, 11 Petitioner, 12 13 14 v. M. McDONALD, Warden, 15 Respondent. 16 ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 1:12-cv—00206-SKO-HC ORDER DIRECTING PETITIONER TO FILE A SIGNED AND DATED VERIFICATION OF THE PETITION NO LATER THAN THIRTY (30) DAYS AFTER SERVICE OF THIS ORDER 17 Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in 18 forma pauperis with a petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The 19 matter has been referred to the Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 20 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Local Rules 302 and 303. Pending before 21 the Court is the petition, which was filed on February 13, 2012. 22 I. Screening the Petition 23 Rule 4 of the Rules Governing § 2254 Cases in the United 24 States District Courts (Habeas Rules) requires the Court to make 25 a preliminary review of each petition for writ of habeas corpus. 26 The Court must summarily dismiss a petition "[i]f it plainly 27 appears from the petition and any attached exhibits that the 28 1 1 petitioner is not entitled to relief in the district court....” 2 Habeas Rule 4; O’Bremski v. Maass, 915 F.2d 418, 420 (9th Cir. 3 1990); see also Hendricks v. Vasquez, 908 F.2d 490 (9th Cir. 4 1990). 5 grounds of relief available to the Petitioner; 2) state the facts 6 supporting each ground; and 3) state the relief requested. 7 Notice pleading is not sufficient; rather, the petition must 8 state facts that point to a real possibility of constitutional 9 error. Habeas Rule 2(c) requires that a petition 1) specify all Rule 4, Advisory Committee Notes, 1976 Adoption; 10 O’Bremski v. Maass, 915 F.2d at 420 (quoting Blackledge v. 11 Allison, 431 U.S. 63, 75 n.7 (1977)). 12 that are vague, conclusory, or palpably incredible are subject to 13 summary dismissal. 14 Cir. 1990). 15 Allegations in a petition Hendricks v. Vasquez, 908 F.2d 490, 491 (9th Further, the Court may dismiss a petition for writ of habeas 16 corpus either on its own motion under Habeas Rule 4, pursuant to 17 the respondent's motion to dismiss, or after an answer to the 18 petition has been filed. 19 8, 1976 Adoption; see, Herbst v. Cook, 260 F.3d 1039, 1042-43 20 (9th Cir. 2001). Advisory Committee Notes to Habeas Rule 21 II. 22 A review of the petition shows that although Petitioner Lack of a Verification 23 respectfully submitted and signed the petition (pet. 6.), 24 Petitioner did not date the petition. 25 verified within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 1746.1 Thus, the petition was not 26 27 1 28 Wherever, under any law of the United States or under any rule, regulation, order, or requirement Title 28 U.S.C. § 1746 provides: 2 1 Title 28 U.S.C. § 2242 provides in pertinent part: 2 Application for a writ of habeas corpus shall be in writing signed and verified by the person for whose relief it is intended or by someone acting in his behalf. 3 4 Likewise, Rule 2 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the 5 United States District Courts (Habeas Rules) expressly requires 6 that the petition “be signed under penalty of perjury by the 7 petitioner or by a person authorized to sign it for the 8 petitioner under 28 U.S.C. § 2242.” Habeas Rule 2(c)(5). 9 If a petition is insufficient, the rules direct the Clerk to 10 file the petition, and the Court may then require the petitioner 11 to submit a corrected petition that conforms to Rule 2(c). 12 Habeas Rule 3(b); Habeas Rule 2, Advisory Committee Comment, 2004 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 made pursuant to law, any matter is required or permitted to be supported, evidenced, established, or proved by the sworn declaration, verification, certificate, statement, oath, or affidavit, in writing of the person making the same (other than a deposition, or an oath of office, or an oath required to be taken before a specified official other than a notary public), such matter may, with like force and effect, be supported, evidenced, established, or proved by the unsworn declaration, certificate, verification, or statement, in writing of such person which is subscribed by him, as true under penalty of perjury, and dated, in substantially the following form: (1) If executed without the United States: “I declare (or certify, verify, or state) under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on (date). (Signature)”. (2) If executed within the United States, its territories, possessions, or commonwealths: “I declare (or certify, verify, or state) under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on (date). (Signature)”. 3 1 Amendments. 2 In light of the difficulty in having Petitioner submit a new 3 habeas corpus petition, Petitioner will be given an opportunity 4 to submit a document stating that he submitted the petition to 5 the Court and verifying its contents to be true under penalty of 6 perjury of the laws of the United States. 7 the document and sign the document under penalty of perjury; the 8 document should contain an original signature. 9 be granted thirty (30) from the date of service of this order to Petitioner must date Petitioner will 10 comply with the Court’s directive. 11 petition will be suspended pending receipt of the verification. 12 Further screening of the Petitioner is forewarned that failure to comply with a Court 13 order will result in dismissal of the petition pursuant to Local 14 Rule 110. 15 Accordingly, it is ORDERED that: 16 1) Petitioner is GRANTED thirty (30) days from the date of 17 service of this order in which to file a signed verification of 18 the petition in compliance with this order. 19 20 IT IS SO ORDERED. 21 Dated: ie14hj February 20, 2012 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 4

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?