Esparza v. Sherman

Filing 13

ORDER DISMISSING Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus WITH LEAVE TO AMEND, signed by Magistrate Judge Sheila K. Oberto on 05/24/17. Amended Petition due (30- Day Deadline) (Attachments: # 1 2254 Form)(Martin-Gill, S)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

CASIMIRO ESPARZA,

12

Petitioner,

13
14

v.

No. 1:17-cv-00651-DAD-SKO HC
ORDER DISMISSING PETITION
FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS
WITH LEAVE TO AMEND

STU SHERMAN, Warden,

15

Respondent.

(Doc. 1)

16
Screening Memorandum

17
18

Petitioner Casimiro Esparza is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of

19

habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The Court has reviewed the habeas petition (Doc. 1)

20

and determined that the petition cannot proceed as filed. Accordingly, the Court will dismiss the

21

petition with leave to amend to permit Petitioner to correct the noted deficiencies.

22
I.

Preliminary Screening

23
24

Rule 4 of the Rules Governing § 2254 Cases requires the Court to conduct a preliminary

25

review of each petition for writ of habeas corpus. The Court must dismiss a petition "[i]f it

26

plainly appears from the petition . . . that the petitioner is not entitled to relief." Rule 4 of the

27

Rules Governing 2254 Cases; see also Hendricks v. Vasquez, 908 F.2d 490, 491 (9th Cir. 1990).

28
1

1

A petition for habeas corpus should not be dismissed without leave to amend unless it appears

2

that no tenable claim for relief can be pleaded were such leave to be granted. Jarvis v. Nelson,

3

440 F.2d 13, 14 (9th Cir. 1971).

4
II.

The Petition Fails to State a Claim

5
6
7

A.

The Petition Is Incomplete and Ambiguous

Using a form petition, Petitioner indicates that he is alleging two grounds for relief. In

8

grounds one and two of the form, Petitioner refers the Court to pages 51 through 68 of the petition

9

for both the grounds and the supporting facts. Petitioner indicates that ground three is “NA,”

10
11

presumably not applicable, and leaves ground four of the form blank.
The pages to which Petitioner refers are a portion of the opinion on direct appeal of the

12
13
14
15

California Court of Appeal for the Fifth Appellate District. The pages include the statement of
facts and the state court’s analysis of six claims. The Court is unable to determine which two
claims Petitioner intends to allege as grounds for relief in his federal habeas action.

16

In addition to identifying his federal claims, Petitioner must provide the Court with a brief

17

statement of facts and a brief explanation to inform the Court of his basis for seeking relief on the

18

two identified claims. Because the state court opinion sets forth the state court’s reasoning in

19

denying Petitioner’s claims, Petitioner needs to explain why he seeks relief from the state court’s

20
21

ruling. Simply put, Petitioner needs to tell the Court why he thinks that the state court’s decision

22

was wrong. As he prepares the amended petition, Petitioner may wish to keep in mind the federal

23

standard of habeas review.

24

B.

25

A federal petition for writ of habeas corpus is neither a substitute for a direct appeal nor a

26

Standard of Review

device for federal review of the merits of a guilty verdict rendered in state court. Jackson v.

27
Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 332 n. 5 (1979) (Stevens, J., concurring). Habeas corpus relief is
28
2

1

intended to address only "extreme malfunctions" in state criminal justice proceedings. Id. Under

2

the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA), a petitioner can prevail

3

only if he can show that the state court's adjudication of his claim, on the merits:

4
(1) resulted in a decision that was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable
application of, clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of
the United States; or

5
6

(2) resulted in a decision that was based on an unreasonable determination of the
facts in light of the evidence presented in the State court proceeding.

7
8
9

28 U.S.C. § 2254(d); Lockyer v. Andrade, 538 U.S. 63, 70-71 (2003); Williams,
529 U.S. at 413.

10

"By its terms, § 2254(d) bars relitigation of any claim 'adjudicated on the merits' in state court,

11

subject only to the exceptions set forth in §§ 2254(d)(1) and (d)(2)." Harrington v. Richter, 562

12
13

U.S. 86, 98 (2011).
As a threshold matter, a federal court must first determine what constitutes "clearly

14
15

established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States." Lockyer,

16

538 U.S. at 71. To do so, the Court must look to the holdings, as opposed to the dicta, of the

17

Supreme Court's decisions at the time of the relevant state-court decision. Id. The court must

18
19

then consider whether the state court's decision was "contrary to, or involved an unreasonable
application of, clearly established Federal law." Id. at 72. The state court need not have cited

20
21

clearly established Supreme Court precedent; it is sufficient that neither the reasoning nor the

22

result of the state court contradicts it. Early v. Packer, 537 U.S. 3, 8 (2002). The federal court

23

must apply the presumption that state courts know and follow the law. Woodford v. Visciotti,

24

537 U.S. 19, 24 (2002). The petitioner has the burden of establishing that the decision of the

25

state court is contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, United States Supreme

26

Court precedent. Baylor v. Estelle, 94 F.3d 1321, 1325 (9th Cir. 1996).

27
///
28
3

1
2
3

"A federal habeas court may not issue the writ simply because the court concludes in its
independent judgment that the relevant state-court decision applied clearly established federal
law erroneously or incorrectly." Lockyer, 538 U.S. at 75-76. "A state court's determination that

4
a claim lacks merit precludes federal habeas relief so long as 'fairminded jurists could disagree'
5
6

on the correctness of the state court's decision." Harrington, 562 U.S. at 101 (quoting

7

Yarborough v. Alvarado, 541 U.S. 652, 664 (2004)). Thus, the AEDPA standard for habeas

8

relief is difficult to satisfy since even a strong case for relief does not demonstrate that the state

9

court's determination was unreasonable. Harrington, 562 U.S. at 102.

10

III.

11

Conclusion and Order
The Court hereby ORDERS:

12

1.
The petition for writ of habeas corpus is hereby
DISMISSED with leave to amend.

13

2.
The Clerk of Court shall send Petitioner a copy of this order
and a form for a Petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 for Writ of Habeas
Corpus by a Person in State Custody.

14
15

3.
Within 30 days of this order, Petitioner shall file an
amended petition correcting the deficiencies noted in this order.
Petitioner shall sign the petition under penalty of perjury where
indicated. The amended petition must be complete in itself. This
means that the amended petition may not refer back to any portion
of the original petition filed in this case but must include all
pleadings and any appendices which Petitioner intends to
incorporate within the amended petition.

16
17
18
19
20

4.
If Petitioner fails to file an amended petition within thirty
(30) days from the date of this order, the Court will recommend that
case be dismissed for lack of prosecution.

21
22
23
24

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

May 24, 2017

/s/

25

Sheila K. Oberto

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

26
27
28
4

.