Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-05232/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-05232-0/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

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 -1-

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

TANESHA E. RANDOLPH,

Petitioner, No. 03-CV-5232 ALA

vs.

GLORIA A. HENRY, Warden,

Respondent. ORDER

____________________________/

Petitioner Tanesha E. Randolph is a California state prisoner proceeding pro se with an

application for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. On May 19, 2003, the Court 

issued an order, pursuant to Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases, directing

respondent to file either an answer to Mr. Randolph’s petition or a motion to dismiss the petition. 

(Doc. 8.) Respondent filed an answer on August 15, 2003. (Doc. 12.) As explained below, the

Court believes Ms. Randolph’s petition must be dismissed because it fails to allege a violation of

the Constitution or federal law. The Court will therefore direct Ms. Randolph to show cause why

Case 1:03-cv-05232-ALA Document 15 Filed 08/21/07 Page 1 of 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 -2-

that conclusion is not correct.

Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases requires a district court to dismiss a

habeas petition before the respondent files an answer “[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,

Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. If the district court does not dismiss the petition, “the

judge must order the respondent to file an answer, motion, or other response within a fixed time,

or to take any other action the judge may order.” Id. The Supreme Court has held that a district

court may, on its own initiative, dismiss a habeas petition as untimely even after the respondent 

has filed an answer, provided that the petitioner is given notice and an opportunity to be heard.

Day v. McDonough, 547 U.S. 198, (2006) (abrogating Nardi v. Stewart, 354 F.3d 1134, 1141-42

(9th Cir. 2004)) (upholding court’s sua sponte dismissal, after issuing an order to show cause, for

failure to file within AEDPA statute of limitations). 

 Here, as in Day, there is a fatal defect in the habeas petition. That fatal defect is Ms.

Randolph’s failure to allege any violation of the Constitution or of federal law. “A state

prisoner is entitled to habeas relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 only if he is held in custody in

violation of the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” Gutierrez v. Griggs, 695

F.2d 1195, 1197 (9th Cir. 1983) (emphasis added). “Insofar as [a habeas petitioner] simply

challenges the correctness of . . . state evidentiary rulings and . . . jury instructions, he has

alleged no deprivation of federal rights. When a state prisoner has failed to allege a deprivation

of a federal right, 2254 does not apply . . .” Id. See also Bonin v. Calderon, 77 F.3d 1155, 1161

(9th Cir. 1996) (“Federal habeas corpus relief does not lie for errors of state law, unless the error

amounts to a deprivation of the petitioner’s constitutional rights.”) Because Ms. Randolph’s

petition asserts only state law violations, § 2254 is inapplicable to it and this Court lacks

jurisdiction to consider its claims. See Otey v. Hopkins, 5 F.3d 1125, 1130 (8th Cir. 1993)

Case 1:03-cv-05232-ALA Document 15 Filed 08/21/07 Page 2 of 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

1

 Under Day, this Court has the authority to raise the lack of alleged federal or

constitutional violations sua sponte and dismiss Mr. Day’s petition based on that defect, even

though respondent has filed an answer. Indeed, sua sponte dismissal is even more appropriate in

this case than in Day because this case involves a jurisdictional limitation that the court is

obligated to consider on its own initiative. 

-3-

(“Federal courts have jurisdiction to ‘entertain an application for a writ of habeas corpus . . . only

on the ground that [the petitioner] is in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties

of the United States.”).1

Before dismissing Ms. Randolph’s petition for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, the

Court must “accord the parties fair notice and an opportunity to present their positions.” Day,

547 U.S. at 1684. Consequently, Ms. Randolph IS HEREBY ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE,

on or before September 12, 2007, why her habeas corpus petition should not be dismissed for

failure to allege that she is held “in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of

the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a).

DATED: August 21, 2007

/s/ Arthur L. Alarcón 

 UNITED STATES CIRCUIT JUDGE

Sitting by Designation

Case 1:03-cv-05232-ALA Document 15 Filed 08/21/07 Page 3 of 3