Roots v. Valenzuela
Filing
12
FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 09/02/15 recommending that the petitions for writ of habeas corpus filed in this matter 1 , 8 and 10 be dismissed with prejudice for failure to state a basis for federal habeas relief. Referred to Judge William B. Shubb. Objections due within 14 days. (Plummer, M)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
DONALD ROOTS,
12
Petitioner,
13
14
No. 2:15-cv-0971 WBS KJN P
v.
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
ELVIN VALENZUELA,
15
Respondent.
16
Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed three petitions for a writ of habeas
17
18
corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. (See ECF Nos. 1, 8, 10.) Petitioner filed his second and
19
third habeas petitions on his own accord, rather than in response to a court order. For the reasons
20
set forth below, the undersigned recommends that the habeas petitions be dismissed in their
21
entirety.
Any grounds for habeas relief alleged in the thirty-nine pages of the first petition are
22
23
largely indecipherable. (See ECF No. 1.) The first petition consists largely of passages such as,
24
“Here is the order to grant that relief, if our society keeps moving forward pretending that we
25
have a constitution that really works, but in fact is only as real as the paper money we trade with
26
////
27
////
28
////
1
1
nothing backing it, then at least allow us freedom and a way to utilize our SS# and our word as
2
we sign, to pay the national debt, it is the reason we are killed and falsely accused Right?!”1 (sic)
3
(ECF No. 1 at 3.) The following paragraph comes closest to articulating a potential basis for
4
federal habeas relief:
5
The fact is: the strike law did not apply to cases before Nov. 8,
1994. The other fact is: the 1st Degree Burglary in 5/3/93 is the
basis for the strike enhancements. It is the only strikeable offence
on record but in order for it to be a strikeable offence it had to meet
the date requirement – which it does NOT and the strike law under
§ 667.5(c)(21) where the resident had to be in the house – at the
time of the burglary charged – WHICH IT DOES NOT, the case
was overcharged and no other enhancements or STRIKES should
hold [petitioner] ROOTS, see exhibit[s] Penal Code § 667.5(c)(21),
Probation Report page 7, line 3-11, line 18 is referring to line 311’s strike being the prior strike because you can’t get a strike by
itself for line 17 “Disposition: Possession conviction by itself.” As
Counselor Reynolds suggested while yelling at Roots to “LOOK
AT THE COMPUTER SCREEN” over and over, trying to make
Roots agree with him. MOST OF ROOTS other cases are
Dismissed PROOF of whatever professional has said “Fishing for
Prey.” FURTHERMORE: ROOTS DOES NOT qualify for 85%
and should be discharged!! NOW!
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
(sic) (ECF No. 1 at 14.) Despite these assertions, no constitutional issue is presented in this
16
paragraph. Legislation enacting California’s three strikes law became effective on March 7,
17
1994. Ewing v. California, 538 U.S. 11, 15 (2003). The related Proposition 184 was approved by
18
voters on November 8, 1994. Id. It is well-settled that a judgment of conviction on a felony
19
entered prior to the enactment of the three strikes laws can qualify as a strike. See Brown v.
20
Mayle, 293 F.3d 1019, 1040 (9th Cir. 2002) (finding constitutional the application of the three
21
strikes law where prior offenses were committed and judgments of conviction entered before the
22
law’s enactment), vacated on other grounds, Mayle v. Brown, 538 U.S. 901 (2003). Accordingly,
23
the undersigned finds that the first petition fails to state a basis for federal habeas relief.
24
The second petition, which is twelve pages long, is similarly difficult to decipher. There
25
are a handful of sentences that – construed broadly in favor of the petitioner – might suggest a
26
1
27
28
The first petition also includes documents apparently filed by petitioner in a previous federal
habeas case, Roots v. Cate, no. 2:12-cv-02903-LKK-KJN (E.D. Cal.), in which petitioner
challenged a 2010 conviction. That case was dismissed due to plaintiff’s failure to exhaust state
remedies prior to filing his federal habeas petition.
2
1
claim of ineffective assistance of counsel. For example, petitioner writes, “Just the fact counsel
2
failed to refused to move to have the case, now in question, dismissed on the fact that the witness
3
changed her statement . . . is an outright denial of counsel . . . .” (sic) (ECF No. 8 at 5.) But
4
petitioner provides no additional information regarding the case or conviction he is challenging,
5
and fails to identify the witness he is challenging. As with the first petition, the majority of the
6
second petition consists of sentences such as, “In fact [petitioner] Roots became a ‘Slave’ in
7
violation of his 13th Amendment Right to the U.S. Constitution against ‘Slavery’ and involuntary
8
servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted,
9
shall exist within the United States.” (Id.) Accordingly, the undersigned finds that the second
10
11
petition also fails to state a basis for federal habeas relief.
The third petition, which is seventeen pages long, consists largely of allegations that
12
petitioner’s fourteen-year-old daughter was physically abused by her mother, and then placed by
13
child protective services with petitioner’s mother, who had abused petitioner when he was a child.
14
(See ECF No. 10.) While the court sympathizes with petitioner’s worries about his daughter’s
15
safety, federal court is not a proper venue to address these concerns, nor is a habeas petition the
16
proper vehicle for seeking assistance for a child in danger. If petitioner wishes, he may contact
17
the child protective services office which serves the jurisdiction where his daughter resides in
18
order to express his concerns.
19
20
21
22
23
24
Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts
provides in pertinent part:
The clerk must promptly forward the petition to a judge under the
court’s assignment procedure, and the judge must promptly
examine it. 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.
25
Rule 4, 28 U.S.C. foll. § 2254. Rule 2 further requires that a habeas petition “(1) specify all the
26
grounds for relief available to the petitioner [and] (2) state the facts supporting each ground.”
27
Rule 2, 28 U.S.C. foll. § 2254. “Notice pleading is not sufficient; rather, the petition must state
28
3
1
facts that point to a real possibility of constitutional error.” O’Bremski v. Maass, 915 F. 2d 418,
2
420 (9th Cir. 1990) (internal quotations omitted). Allegations in a petition that are vague,
3
conclusory, or palpably incredible are subject to summary dismissal. Hendricks v. Vasquez, 908
4
F.2d 490, 491 (9th Cir. 1990).
5
In the instant case, over the course of three purported habeas petitions, petitioner has
6
provided only a handful of allegations that even remotely resemble grounds for habeas relief.
7
The allegations in question are vague at best. Moreover, no facts are provided that support the
8
grounds raised or that otherwise “point to a real possibility of constitutional error.” O’Bremski,
9
915 F.2d at 420. Ultimately, despite having made three attempts to do so, petitioner has entirely
10
failed to articulate grounds for federal habeas relief. It is therefore recommended that the habeas
11
petitions be dismissed with prejudice.
12
In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that the petitions for
13
writ of habeas corpus filed in this matter (ECF No. 1, 8, 10) be dismissed with prejudice for
14
failure to state a basis for federal habeas relief.
15
These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge
16
assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen days
17
after being served with these findings and recommendations, petitioner may file written
18
objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned
19
“Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Petitioner is advised that
20
failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District
21
Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).
22
23
Dated: September 2, 2015
24
25
JM /root0971.101a+dism
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?