Batman v. Spearman

Filing 3

ORDER DISMISSING PETITION WITH LEAVE TO AMEND re 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus filed by Jason Batman. Signed by Judge James Donato on 12/29/14. (lrcS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/29/2014)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

JASON BATMAN,

Case No. 14-cv-05013-JD

Plaintiff,
8
v.

ORDER DISMISSING PETITION WITH
LEAVE TO AMEND

9
10

MARION E. SPEARMAN,
Defendant.

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
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 has paid the filing fee.
DISCUSSION

15
16
17

I.

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

18

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

19

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

20

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

21

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

22

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

23

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

24

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

25

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

26

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

27

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

28

II.

1

LEGAL CLAIMS
The exact nature of this petition and the relief petitioner seeks are difficult to discern.

2
3

Petitioner is currently incarcerated at the Correctional Training Facility in Soledad, CA. He states

4

he is in custody related to a 2013 conviction from Fresno County Superior Court for grand

5

larceny. However, petitioner does not present any claims, instead attaching various exhibits and

6

state habeas petitions.
It appears, though the Court is not certain, that petitioner is challenging a 1992 plea

7

agreement regarding indecent exposure. At that time a conviction for indecent exposure

9

(California Penal Code section 314) did not require sex-offender registration. The law was

10

subsequently changed and now requires registration for such convictions. As a result, the

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

8

Correctional Training Facility has classified petitioner as a sex offender and he seems to argue this

12

is an Ex Post Facto violation. Petitioner does not specify where the underlying conviction

13

occurred.1
The petition will be dismissed with leave to amend. Petitioner must clearly set forth the

14
15

conviction he wishes to challenge, his claims, and where the conviction occurred. If petitioner’s

16

claim involves sex-offender registration he must provide more information about the

17

circumstances of the registration. He is also informed that sex-offender registration pursuant to

18

California Penal Code section 290 does not constitute retroactive punishment prohibited by the Ex

19

Post Facto Clause nor violate the notice requirement under the Due Process Clause. Hatton v.

20

Bonner, 356 F.3d 955, 966, 968 (9th Cir. 2004) (upholding constitutionality of § 290 as non-

21

punitive in light of Ex Post Facto challenge and finding no due process violation where petitioner

22

presented no evidence of lack of actual knowledge of registration requirement); see also Smith v.

23

Doe, 538 U.S. 84, 97-102 (2003) (finding Alaska’s sex offender registration requirement was

24

constitutional).

25
26
1

27
28

A state habeas petition was denied on the merits by the Monterey County Superior Court.
Petition at 36. That court noted that the petition had been transferred from Santa Clara County to
Fresno County to Monterey County, but it was still unclear the origins of the conviction.
Regardless, the court denied the petition on the merits.
2

CONCLUSION

1
1.
2
3
4

The petition is DISMISSED with leave to amend. The amended petition must be

filed within twenty-eight (28) days of the date this order is filed and must include the caption and
civil case number used in this order and the words AMENDED PETITION on the first page.
2.

Petitioner must keep the Court informed of any change of address and must comply

5

with the Court’s orders in a timely fashion. Failure to do so may result in the dismissal of this

6

action for failure to prosecute pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). See Martinez v.

7

Johnson, 104 F.3d 769, 772 (5th Cir. 1997) (Rule 41(b) applicable in habeas cases).
IT IS SO ORDERED.

8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

Dated: December 29, 2014
______________________________________
JAMES DONATO
United States District Judge

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

JASON BATMAN,

Case No. 14-cv-05013-JD

Plaintiff,
8
v.

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

9
10

MARION E. SPEARMAN,
Defendant.

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15

I, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am an employee in the Office of the Clerk, U.S.
District Court, Northern District of California.
That on 12/29/2014, I SERVED a true and correct copy(ies) of the attached, by placing
said copy(ies) in a postage paid envelope addressed to the person(s) hereinafter listed, by
depositing said envelope in the U.S. Mail, or by placing said copy(ies) into an inter-office delivery
receptacle located in the Clerk's office.

16
17
18
19

Jason Batman
CTF Soledad
P.O. Box 705
Soledad, CA 93960

20
21

Dated: 12/29/2014

22
23

Richard W. Wieking
Clerk, United States District Court

24
25
26
27

By:________________________
LISA R. CLARK, Deputy Clerk to the
Honorable JAMES DONATO

28
4