Field v. Gastelo

Filing 7

ORDER OF DISMISSAL (Illston, Susan) (Filed on 2/12/2018)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

MARSHALL L. FIELD,

8

Petitioner,
ORDER OF DISMISSAL

9

v.

10

JOSIE GASTELO,

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

Case No. 17-cv-05687-SI

Respondent.

12
13

Marshall Field, an inmate at the California Men’s Colony in San Luis Obispo, California,

14

filed this pro se action seeking a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 to challenge a

15

decision by the California Governor to reverse the finding of parole suitability.

16

reviewed his petition and dismissed it with leave to amend as to one claim. The court explained

17

that the petition did not state a claim for a violation of a plea agreement because Field had not

18

identified any particular term in the plea agreement that was breached. See Docket No. 5 at 3.

19

The court granted him leave to amend the claim and stated that, in his amended petition, Field

20

needed to “identify the specific term that he claims has been breached. He should attach a copy of

21

the transcript of the plea colloquy transcript from 1980 or the written plea agreement so that this

22

court may see the term allegedly breached. . . . Field also should identify when that term of the

23

plea agreement was first breached.” Id. at 4. The court also dismissed a second “claim” that the

24

State was bound by the prosecutor’s promises, finding that it was an argument in support of the

25

breach-of-plea-agreement claim rather than a separate claim. Id. at 4-5. The court also dismissed

26

without leave to amend a claim that Field’s 15-to-life sentence for second degree murder was cruel

27

and unusual punishment. Id. at 4-7. The court set a deadline of December 8, 2017 for Field to file

28

an amended petition. Id. at 8.

The court

1

Field chose not to file an amended petition. Instead, he filed “objections to order of

2

dismissal with leave to amend” in which he argued that the court was “objectively unreasonable”

3

in its ruling on his petition. Docket No. 6 at 2. He then “incorporate[d] by reference the claims

4

contained in the petition as properly before this court and request[ed] that the court order

5

Respondent to address these claims on the merits.” Id.
The court already has determined that the petition fails to state a claim for habeas relief,

7

yet Field has chosen to stand on that petition rather than to file an amended petition. As the only

8

pleading on file fails to state a claim for relief, this action is DISMISSED. Further leave to amend

9

will not be granted because it would be futile: the court explained the deficiencies in the petition

10

and Field is unwilling or unable to cure the deficiencies with an amended petition for writ of

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

6

habeas corpus.

12

The clerk shall close the file.

13

IT IS SO ORDERED.

14
15
16

Dated: February 12, 2018
______________________________________
SUSAN ILLSTON
United States District Judge

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2