(HC) Sessoms v. Unknown

Filing 3

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Jeremy D. Peterson on 9/8/2021 ORDERING petitioner may file an amended petition within 60 days. The Clerk shall send petitioner a federal habeas form. (Yin, K)

Case 2:21-cv-01577-JDP Document 3 Filed 09/09/21 Page 1 of 2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

TIO DINERO SESSOMS,

12
13
14
15

Petitioner,
v.

Case No. 2:21-cv-01577-JDP (HC)
ORDER FINDING THAT THE PETITION
DOES NOT STATE A COGNIZABLE CLAIM
AND GRANTING LEAVE TO AMEND
WITHIN SIXTY DAYS

UNKNOWN,
ECF No. 1
Respondent.

16
17
18

Petitioner, proceeding without counsel, seeks a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C.

19

§ 2254. I have reviewed the petition and cannot tell whether petitioner is incarcerated, what his

20

current claims are, or whether he has exhausted any claims by presenting them to the California

21

Supreme Court. Thus, his petition cannot proceed past screening. I will allow him an

22

opportunity to file an amended petition before recommending that this action be dismissed.

23

The petition is before me for preliminary review under Rule 4 of the Rules Governing

24

Section 2254 Cases. Under Rule 4, the judge assigned to the habeas proceeding must examine

25

the habeas petition and order a response to the petition unless it “plainly appears” that the

26

petitioner is not entitled to relief. See Valdez v. Montgomery, 918 F.3d 687, 693 (9th Cir. 2019);

27

Boyd v. Thompson, 147 F.3d 1124, 1127 (9th Cir. 1998).

28
1

Case 2:21-cv-01577-JDP Document 3 Filed 09/09/21 Page 2 of 2
1

Petitioner argues that, in December 2020, a California state court dismissed his habeas

2

petition after finding that he was “out of custody.” ECF No. 1 at 2. He does not state whether he

3

appealed that decision to the California Supreme Court before bringing this action. Neither does

4

he offer an intelligible argument as to why, if he is no longer in custody, habeas relief remains

5

viable. Additionally, I cannot tell what claims are being raised. Petitioner alludes to violations of

6

his Miranda rights and an unlawful arrest, id. at 5, several instances of ineffective assistance of

7

counsel, id. at 5-7, 9, and prosecutorial misconduct at trial, id. at 8. The petition does not specify

8

whether each of these issues is a separate claim or if some are being offered only for context.

9

And, even if all are assumed to be claims, they are too vaguely pleaded to proceed. Petitioner

10

mentions events involving law enforcement in Oklahoma but offers little specific background.

11

He argues that his counsel made errors at trial but does not describe the alleged prejudice that he

12

suffered. If this petition is to proceed, petitioner must label and explain each of the claims that he

13

seeks to raise.

14

It is ORDERED that:

15

1.

Petitioner may file an amended petition within sixty days of this order’s entry. If

16

he does not, I will recommend that the current petition be dismissed for the reasons stated in this

17

order.

18

2.

The Clerk of Court is directed to send petitioner a federal habeas form.

19
20

IT IS SO ORDERED.

21
Dated:
22
23

September 8, 2021
JEREMY D. PETERSON
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

24
25
26
27
28
2