Knutson v. Biter

Filing 9

ORDER by Judge James Donato denying 5 Motion for Discovery; denying 6 Motion for Discovery; granting 7 Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis and Dismissing Petition with Leave to Amend (lrcS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/18/2014) (Additional attachment(s) added on 6/18/2014: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service) (lrcS, COURT STAFF).

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

RONALD KNUTSON,

Case No. 14-cv-01472-JD

Plaintiff,
8
v.
9
10

MARTIN BITER,
Defendant.

Re: Dkt. Nos. 5, 6, 7

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

ORDER GRANTING LEAVE TO
PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS AND
DISMISSING PETITION WITH LEAVE
TO AMEND

12
Petitioner, a California prisoner, filed a pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant

13
14

to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. He also applied for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. Petitioner was

15

convicted in Santa Clara County, which is in this district, so venue is proper here. See 28 U.S.C. §

16

2241(d).
DISCUSSION

17
18
19

I.

STANDARD OF REVIEW
This Court may entertain a petition for writ of habeas corpus “in behalf of a person in

20

custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court only on the ground that he is in custody in

21

violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a); Rose v.

22

Hodges, 423 U.S. 19, 21 (1975). Habeas corpus petitions must meet heightened pleading

23

requirements. McFarland v. Scott, 512 U.S. 849, 856 (1994). An application for a federal writ of

24

habeas corpus filed by a prisoner who is in state custody pursuant to a judgment of a state court

25

must “specify all the grounds for relief available to the petitioner ... [and] state the facts supporting

26

each ground.” Rule 2(c) of the Rules Governing § 2254 Cases, 28 U.S.C. § 2254. “‘[N]otice’

27

pleading is not sufficient, for the petition is expected to state facts that point to a ‘real possibility

28

1

of constitutional error.’” Rule 4 Advisory Committee Notes (quoting Aubut v. Maine, 431 F.2d

2

688, 689 (1st Cir. 1970)).

3

II.

LEGAL CLAIMS

4

While petitioner does not state when he was convicted and sentenced, the California Court

5

of Appeal affirmed the conviction in 2006. People v. Knutson, No. H029611, 2006 WL 3639259

6

(Cal. Ct. App. Dec. 14, 2006). Petitioner states he filed several state habeas petition, but the

7

California Supreme Court denied the last petition in 2011. It seems this petition is untimely as it

8

was filed several years after the one year statute of limitations. In addition, the petition does not

9

set forth specific habeas claims and much of it is illegibly handwritten and incomprehensible.
Petitioner previously filed a habeas case in this Court regarding the same conviction in 2008 that

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

was dismissed without prejudice. Knutson v. Jacquez, Case No. 08-cv-5694-CW. The

12

handwritten filings in that case were also difficult to decipher and the claims were

13

incomprehensible. Docket No. 14 in Case No. 08-cv-5694-CW. In this case, the petition will be

14

dismissed with leave to amend for petitioner to address the timeliness issue and present clear

15

legible claims regarding his conviction.
CONCLUSION

16
17

1.

Leave to proceed in forma pauperis (Docket No. 7) is GRANTED.

18

2.

The motion for discovery (Docket No. 5) and motion to expand the record (Docket

19
20

No. 6) are DENIED.
3.

The petition is DISMISSED with leave to amend in accordance with the standards

21

set forth above. The amended petition must be filed within twenty-eight (28) days of the date this

22

order is filed and must include the caption and civil case number used in this order and the words

23

AMENDED PETITION on the first page. Failure to amend within the designated time will result

24

in the dismissal of this action.

25
26
27
28

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: June 17, 2014
______________________________________
JAMES DONATO
United States District Judge
2