Field v. Gastelo

Filing 7

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

Download PDF
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

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?