Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_22-cv-00172/USCOURTS-caed-1_22-cv-00172-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 28:2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)

---

1

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Pending is Petitioner’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254

on February 7, 2022. (Doc. 1). A preliminary screening of the petition reveals that the Petition fails to 

identify any grounds for relief. Due to Petitioner’s pro se status, the Court will permit Petitioner an 

opportunity to file an amended petition.

I. DISCUSSION

A. Preliminary Review of Petition

Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases requires the Court to make a preliminary 

review of each petition for writ of habeas corpus. The Court must summarily dismiss a petition “[i]f it 

plainly appears from the petition and any attached exhibits that the petitioner is not entitled to relief in 

the district court. . .” Rule 4; O’Bremski v. Maass, 915 F.2d 418, 420 (9th Cir. 1990). The Advisory 

Committee Notes to Rule 8 indicate that the Court may dismiss a petition for writ of habeas corpus, 

KENNETH JAMES WEST,

 Petitioner,

v.

ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF 

CALIFORNIA,

Respondent.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 1:22-cv-00172-BAK (HBK) (HC)

ORDER FINDING PETITION FAILS TO STATE A 

CLAIM AND DIRECTING PETITIONER TO FILE 

A FIRST AMENDED PETITION

THIRTY-DAY DEADLINE

Case 1:22-cv-00172-KES-CDB Document 12 Filed 02/23/22 Page 1 of 3
2

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

either on its own motion under Rule 4, pursuant to the respondent’s motion to dismiss, or after an 

answer to the petition has been filed. 

B. Failure to State a Cognizable Federal Claim

The basic scope of habeas corpus is prescribed by statute. Title 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a) states:

The Supreme Court, a Justice thereof, a circuit judge, or a district court shall entertain an 

application for a writ of habeas corpus in behalf of a person in custody pursuant to a 

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

Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.

(emphasis added). See also Rule 1 to the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States 

District Court. The Supreme Court has held that “the essence of habeas corpus is an attack by a 

person in custody upon the legality of that custody . . .” Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 484 

(1973).

To succeed in a petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, Petitioner must demonstrate that the 

adjudication of his claim in state court

(1) resulted in a decision that was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application 

of, clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United 

States; or (2) resulted in a decision that was based on an unreasonable determination of 

the facts in light of the evidence presented in the State court proceeding.

28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1), (2). In addition to the above, Rule 2(c) of the Rules Governing Section 2254 

Cases requires that the petition:

(1) Specify all the grounds for relief available to the petitioner;

(2) State the facts supporting each ground;

(3) State the relief requested;

(4) Be printed, typewritten, or legibly handwritten; and

(5) Be signed under penalty of perjury by the petitioner or by a person authorized to sign it for 

the petitioner under 28 U.S.C. § 2242.

The instant Petition fails to identify any grounds for relief in his petition. Instead, this section 

of the Petition is blank. (See Doc. 1 at 5-10). The Petition does not comply with Rule 2(c) because it 

fails to specify any grounds for relief and any facts supporting the grounds. O’Bremski v. Maass, 915 

F.2d 418, 420 (9th Cir. 1990); United States v. Popoola, 881 F.2d 811, 812 (9th Cir. 1989). 

Additionally, the Petition fails to state how the adjudication of any claims in state court resulted in a 

decision that was contrary to, or an unreasonable application of, clearly established Supreme Court 

Case 1:22-cv-00172-KES-CDB Document 12 Filed 02/23/22 Page 2 of 3
3

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

authority. Therefore, the Petition fails to present a cognizable claim for relief and is subject to 

dismissal.

Petitioner will be granted an opportunity to file a First Amended Petition to cure these 

deficiencies. Petitioner is advised that he should caption his pleading, “First Amended Petition,” and 

he should reference the instant case number. 

Accordingly, the Court ORDERS:

1) Within thirty days from the date of service of this Order, Petitioner shall file a

First Amended Petition.

2) Petitioner’s failure to timely comply with this order will result in the 

undersigned recommending the dismissal of the Petition for failing to state a cognizable 

claim and/or Petitioner’s failure to comply with this Order pursuant to Local Rule 110.

Dated: February 23, 2022 

HELENA M. BARCH-KUCHTA

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:22-cv-00172-KES-CDB Document 12 Filed 02/23/22 Page 3 of 3