Fisher v. Barrios et al
Filing
25
ORDER Requiring Petitioner to Submit a Second Amended Petition; ORDER Directing Clerk of Court to Send Petitioner a Form for Filing Habeas Corpus Petition pursuant to 28 USC 2254, signed by Magistrate Judge Jennifer L. Thurston on 7/2/14. 30-Day Deadline. (Attachments: # 1 Petition Form)(Verduzco, M)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
Petitioner,
12
13
14
15
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
GARY FRANCIS FISHER,
v.
RICK BARRIOS, et al.,
Respondent.
16
17
18
19
Case No.: 1:14-cv-00895-AWI-JLT
ORDER REQUIRING PETITIONER TO SUBMIT
A SECOND AMENDED PETITION
30-DAY DEADLINE
ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF THE COURT TO
SEND PETITIONER A FORM FOR FILING
HABEAS CORPUS PETITION PURSUANT TO 28
U.S.C. § 2254
Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding through retained counsel with a petition for writ of
habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254.
20
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
21
Petitioner filed the instant petition on March 13, 2014, in the U.S. District Court for the
22
Northern District of California, and was transferred to this Court on May 14, 2014. (Doc. 14). It
23
appears that Petitioner is challenging a 2010 conviction by plea of nolo contendere in the Kern County
24
Superior Court, Bakersfield, California. Beyond that, the original petition is a collection of unrelated
25
statements, arguments, and quotations, none of which are intelligible to the Court or comprehensible
26
as a cognizable federal habeas claim. (Doc. 1). To the contrary, many of Petitioner’s “claims” in the
27
original petition appear to indicate that he is asserting a civil rights complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §
28
1983. Petitioner’s claim of “damages” supports this view.
1
1
However, before the Court could conduct a preliminary screening of the petition, Petitioner
2
filed a first amended petition on June 18, 2014. (Doc. 24). The 6-page handwritten first amended
3
petition does not appear to state any kind of claim sounding in habeas corpus. Rather, it appears to
4
assert a need for additional court records and medical files. However, nowhere in the first amended
5
petition are the specific records and files designated. Nor does Petitioner indicate precisely why those
6
records and files are necessary nor to what they might pertain.
7
A. Procedural Grounds for Summary Dismissal.
8
Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases provides in pertinent part:
9
If it plainly appears from the petition and any attached exhibits that the petitioner is not entitled
to relief in the district court, the judge must dismiss the petition and direct the clerk to notify
the petitioner.
10
11
The Advisory Committee Notes to Rule 8 indicate that the court may dismiss a petition for writ of
12
habeas corpus, either on its own motion under Rule 4, pursuant to the respondent’s motion to dismiss,
13
or after an answer to the petition has been filed. A petition for habeas corpus should not be dismissed
14
without leave to amend unless it appears that no tenable claim for relief can be pleaded were such
15
leave granted. Jarvis v. Nelson, 440 F.2d 13, 14 (9th Cir. 1971).
16
B. Insufficient Information And Failure To State A Cognizable Habeas Claim.
17
A preliminary review of the first amended petition indicates that Petitioner has not provided
18
19
sufficient information regarding his claims for this case to proceed.
The basic scope of habeas corpus is prescribed by statute. Subsection (c) of Section 2241 of
20
Title 28 of the United States Code provides that habeas corpus shall not extend to a prisoner unless he
21
is “in custody in violation of the Constitution.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a) states that the federal courts shall
22
entertain a petition for writ of habeas corpus only on the ground that the petitioner “is in custody in
23
violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States. See also, Rule 1 to the Rules
24
Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Court. The Supreme Court has held that
25
“the essence of habeas corpus is an attack by a person in custody upon the legality of that custody . . .”
26
Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 484 (1973). Furthermore, in order to succeed in a petition pursuant
27
to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, Petitioner must demonstrate that the adjudication of his claim in state court
28
resulted in a decision that was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly
2
1
established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States; or resulted in a
2
decision that was based on an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence
3
presented in the State court proceeding. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1), (2).
4
Petitioner does not allege a violation of the Constitution or federal law, nor does he argue that
5
he is in custody in violation of the Constitution or federal law. Petitioner does not allege that the
6
adjudication of his claims in state court “resulted in a decision that was contrary to, or involved an
7
unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, . . . or resulted in a decision that was
8
based on an unreasonable determination of the facts . . . .” 28 U.S.C. § 2254.
9
Moreover, Petitioner has provided so little information in the first amended petition that the
10
Court is unable to discern any claims at all, let alone cognizable federal habeas claims. Rule 2 of the
11
Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases provides that the petition:
12
13
“…shall specify all the grounds for relief which are available to the petitioner and of
which he has or by the exercise of reasonable diligence should have knowledge and shall
set forth in summary form the facts supporting each of the grounds thus specified.”
14
Rule 2(c), Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. Petitioner must also clearly state the relief sought in
15
the petition. Id. Additionally, the Advisory Committee Notes to Rule 4 explains that “…’[N]otice’
16
pleading is not sufficient, for the petition is expected to state facts that point to a ‘real possibility of
17
constitutional error.’” Advisory Committee Notes to Rule 4; see Blackledge v. Allison, 431 U.S. 63,
18
75, n. 7, 97 S.Ct. 1621 (1977).
19
Here, Petitioner has submitted a first amended petition that fails to comply with the
20
requirements of Rule 2(c). Indeed, the Court cannot discern any claims for relief from the information
21
provided nor what kind of relief Petitioner might be seeking. It is Petitioner’s responsibility to specify
22
all grounds for relief and to provide sufficient factual allegations for the Court to determine what
23
claims Petitioner is seeking to raise and whether those claims state the kind of federal constitutional
24
violations upon which this Court’s habeas jurisdiction is predicated. Petitioner has failed to meet these
25
minimal pleading requirements. Accordingly, Petitioner will be required to submit a Second
26
Amended Petition in which he clearly and succinctly sets forth all of his claims, together with
27
supporting factual allegations, in order for this case to proceed.
28
3
1
C. Exhaustion of Remedies.
2
A petitioner who is in state custody and wishes to collaterally challenge his conviction by a
3
petition for writ of habeas corpus must exhaust state judicial remedies. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(1). The
4
exhaustion doctrine is based on comity to the state court and gives the state court the initial
5
opportunity to correct the state's alleged constitutional deprivations. Coleman v. Thompson, 501 U.S.
6
722, 731 (1991); Rose v. Lundy, 455 U.S. 509, 518 (1982); Buffalo v. Sunn, 854 F.2d 1158, 1163 (9th
7
Cir. 1988).
8
9
A petitioner can satisfy the exhaustion requirement by providing the highest state court with a
full and fair opportunity to consider each claim before presenting it to the federal court. Duncan v.
10
Henry, 513 U.S. 364, 365 (1995); Picard v. Connor, 404 U.S. 270, 276 (1971); Johnson v. Zenon, 88
11
F.3d 828, 829 (9th Cir. 1996). In this instance, the highest state court would be the California Supreme
12
Court. A federal court will find that the highest state court was given a full and fair opportunity to
13
hear a claim if the petitioner has presented the highest state court with the claim's factual and legal
14
basis. Duncan, 513 U.S. at 365 (legal basis); Kenney v. Tamayo-Reyes, 504 U.S. 1, 112 S.Ct. 1715,
15
1719 (1992) (factual basis).
16
Additionally, the petitioner must have specifically told the state court that he was raising a
17
federal constitutional claim. Duncan, 513 U.S. at 365-66; Lyons v. Crawford, 232 F.3d 666, 669 (9th
18
Cir.2000), amended, 247 F.3d 904 (2001); Hiivala v. Wood, 195 F.3d 1098, 1106 (9th Cir.1999);
19
Keating v. Hood, 133 F.3d 1240, 1241 (9th Cir.1998).
20
Here, Petitioner has not provided any information regarding his efforts to fully exhaust his
21
claims in the state courts. Without this information, the Court cannot proceed. In his second amended
22
petition, Petitioner must provide the specific information regarding what claims he has raised in the
23
California Supreme Court, when those claims were denied, and provide copies, if he has them, of the
24
state high court’s orders denying those claims.
25
D. Failure to Name A Proper Respondent.
26
A petitioner seeking habeas corpus relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 must name the state officer
27
having custody of him as the respondent to the petition. Rule 2 (a) of the Rules Governing § 2254
28
Cases; Ortiz-Sandoval v. Gomez, 81 F.3d 891, 894 (9th Cir. 1996); Stanley v. California Supreme
4
1
Court, 21 F.3d 359, 360 (9th Cir. 1994). Normally, the person having custody of an incarcerated
2
petitioner is the warden of the prison in which the petitioner is incarcerated because the warden has
3
“day-to-day control” over the petitioner. Brittingham v. United States, 982 F.2d 378, 379 (9th Cir.
4
1992); see also, Stanley, at 360. However, the chief officer in charge of state penal institutions is also
5
appropriate. Ortiz, 81 F.3d at 894; Stanley, 21 F.3d at 360. Where a petitioner is on probation or
6
parole, the proper respondent is his probation or parole officer and the official in charge of the parole
7
or probation agency or state correctional agency. Id.
8
9
Here, Petitioner has named as Respondent a variety of individuals, including a federal customs
agent and a state judge. However, he has not named the warden or chief officer of the institution
10
where Petitioner is confined and, thus, the named Respondents do not have day-to-day control over
11
Petitioner. Petitioner is presently confined at the California Health Care Facility, Stockton, California.
12
The current director or warden of that facility is Ron Rackley. Ron Rackley is the person Petitioner
13
should name as Respondent.
14
Petitioner’s failure to name a proper respondent requires dismissal of his habeas petition for
15
lack of jurisdiction. Stanley, 21 F.3d at 360; Olson v. California Adult Auth., 423 F.2d 1326, 1326
16
(9th Cir. 1970); see also, Billiteri v. United States Bd. Of Parole, 541 F.2d 938, 948 (2nd Cir. 1976).
17
However, the Court will give Petitioner the opportunity to cure this defect by amending the
18
petition to name a proper respondent, such as the warden of his facility. See West v. Louisiana,
19
478 F.2d 1026, 1029 (5th Cir.1973), vacated in part on other grounds, 510 F.2d 363 (5th Cir.1975)
20
(en banc) (allowing petitioner to amend petition to name proper respondent); Ashley v. State of
21
Washington, 394 F.2d 125 (9th Cir. 1968) (same). In any amended petition he might file, Petitioner
22
must name a proper respondent.
23
Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:
24
1. The instant first amended petition for writ of habeas corpus is hereby DISMISSED.
25
Petitioner is GRANTED 30 days from the date of service of this Order to SUBMIT a
26
SECOND AMENDED PETITION that is in compliance with this Order. The Clerk of the
27
Court is DIRECTED to send Petitioner a blank form petition for petitioners filing pursuant
28
to 28 U.S.C. § 2254.
5
1
2
Petitioner is forewarned that his failure to comply with this Order may result in an Order of
Dismissal or a Recommendation that the petition be dismissed pursuant to Local Rule 110.
3
4
5
6
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:
July 2, 2014
/s/ Jennifer L. Thurston
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
6
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?