Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_08-cv-00226/USCOURTS-caed-1_08-cv-00226-0/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

27

28

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RODERICK WASHINGTON,

Petitioner,

v.

ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER, et.al.,

Respondent.

 /

1:08-cv-00226 AWI DLB HC

ORDER DISMISSING PETITION FOR WRIT

OF HABEAS CORPUS, WITH PREJUDICE

[Doc. 1]

Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas corpus

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 

Petitioner filed the instant petition for writ of habeas corpus on August 14, 2007, in the

United States District Court for the Central District of California. The petition was transferred to

this Court on January 30, 2008, and filed on February 13, 2008. (Court Doc. 1.) 

In the instant petition, Petitioner raises the following three claims for relief: “Petitioner

was ill-advised by court of 296 P.C. and extended pass parole date if failed and refused to take

DNA test ordered by CDCR”; (2) Petitioner was not informed of DNA testing or sexual

registration per Penal Code 290 and 295 and 296"; and (3) Petitioner is subjected to atypical and

significant hardship and retaliation.” (Petition, at 5-6.) 

DISCUSSION

I. Preliminary Review of Petition

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

Case 1:08-cv-00226-AWI-DLB Document 6 Filed 03/07/08 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

27

28

2

petition if it “plainly appears from the petition and any attached exhibits that the petitioner is not

entitled to relief in the district court . . . .” The Advisory Committee Notes to Rule 8 indicate that

the court may dismiss a petition for writ of habeas corpus, 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. 

See Herbst v. Cook, 260 F.3d 1039 (9 Cir.2001). th

A federal court may only grant a petition for writ of habeas corpus if the petitioner can

show that "he is in custody in violation of the Constitution . . . ." 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a). A habeas

corpus petition is the correct method for a prisoner to challenge the “legality or duration” of his

confinement. Badea v. Cox, 931 F.2d 573, 574 (9th Cir. 1991), quoting, Preiser v. Rodriguez,

411 U.S. 475, 485 (1973); Advisory Committee Notes to Rule 1 of the Rules Governing Section

2254 Cases. In contrast, a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 is the proper method

for a prisoner to challenge the conditions of that confinement. McCarthy v. Bronson, 500 U.S.

136, 141-42 (1991); Preiser, 411 U.S. at 499; Badea, 931 F.2d at 574; Advisory Committee

Notes to Rule 1 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. 

II. Failure to State a Cognizable Federal Claim

In his petition before this Court, Petitioner presents three grounds for relief. However,

none of them present a cognizable federal claim.

In Ground One, Petitioner contends that on August 30, 2004, the Clerk of the Pasadena

County Superior Court sent him an amended abstract of judgment and the DNA box was not

checked. Petitioner contends that CDCR officials continue to falsify documents to subject him to

DNA testing. Petitioner contends that he was not advised of the DNA testing upon his arrival at

CDCR and his failure to subdue to such testing will result in an adjustment of his release date. 

Petitioner’s claim is so vague and conclusory it does not warrant habeas corpus relief. See Jones

v. Gomez, 66 F.3d 199, 204-05 (9 Cir.1995) (holding that conclusory allegations made with no th

reference to the record or any document do not merit habeas relief). Although Petitioner

contends that his 2002 conviction for burglary and identity theft do not warrant DNA testing, the

Court takes judicial notice of the fact that Petitioner also suffers from a 2006 conviction in the

Kings County Superior Court for indecent exposure in violation of California Penal Code § 314,

Case 1:08-cv-00226-AWI-DLB Document 6 Filed 03/07/08 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

27

28 A Court may take judicial notice of court records. See, MGIC Indem. Co. v. Weisman, 803 F.2d 500, 505 1

(9 Cir. 1986); United States v. Wilson, 631 F.2d 118, 119 (9 cir. 1980). th th

3

subd. 1. As a consequence, Petitioner is subject to registration as a sex offender pursuant to

California Penal Code § 290. See CV-F-07-277 LJO SMS HC. Petitioner’s present allegation 1

simply fails to rise to the level of a constitutional violation and the claim must be dismissed. 

In Ground Two, Petitioner contends that he was not informed of the sexual registration

requirement by the Superior Court, and the statute has been unlawfully applied to him. (Petition,

at 5.) The challenged conviction arises out of the Pasadena County Superior Court, which is

located within the jurisdiction of the United States District Court for the Central District of

California. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a); 2241(d). Any challenge as to that conviction and/or sentence

must be raised in that Court. 

In Ground Three, Petitioner challenges the conditions of his confinement, which cannot

be raised via § 2254 petition. Rather, such claims must be raised via § 1983 complaint. The

Court notes that Petitioner is presently subject to a pre-filing order, see case number 1:99-cv06590 OWW-LJO-P Washington v. Early, and any attempt by Petitioner to circumvent such

requirement may result in sanctions by the Court. See Local Rule 11-110. 

In sum, Petitioner’s claims are unfounded and conclusory and present no basis for which

this court can grant habeas relief. Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases explicitly

allows the district court to dismiss summarily a habeas petition when no claim for relief is stated. 

See O’Bremski v. Maass, 915 F.2d 418, 420 (9 Cir.1990.) th

ORDER

Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that the instant petition for writ of

habeas corpus is DISMISSED, with prejudice. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 7, 2008 /s/ Anthony W. Ishii 

0m8i78 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:08-cv-00226-AWI-DLB Document 6 Filed 03/07/08 Page 3 of 3