Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_16-cv-01505/USCOURTS-caed-2_16-cv-01505-1/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

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DAVID SAMPSON HUNTER,

Petitioner,

v.

SACRAMENTO SUPERIOR COURT, et 

al.,

Respondents.

No. 2:16-cv-1505 CKD P

ORDER

Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed a petition for a writ of habeas 

corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, together with an application to proceed in forma pauperis. 

Examination of the in forma pauperis application reveals that petitioner is unable to afford 

the costs of suit. Accordingly, the application to proceed in forma pauperis will be granted. See

28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). 

It appears that petitioner challenges a conviction in the Sacramento County Superior 

Court. It is not clear from the petition what claims he is asserting or the legal/factual basis for 

any such claims. 

Habeas Rule 2(c) requires that a petition 1) specify all grounds of relief available to the 

petitioner; 2) state the facts supporting each ground; and 3) state the relief requested. Notice 

pleading is not sufficient; rather, the petition must state facts that point to a real possibility of 

constitutional error.” Rule 4, Advisory Committee Notes, 1976 Adoption; see Blackledge v. 

Case 2:16-cv-01505-CKD Document 10 Filed 08/12/16 Page 1 of 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

2

Allison, 431 U.S. 63, 75 n. 7 (1977). Allegations in a petition that are vague, conclusory, or 

palpably incredible are subject to summary dismissal. Hendricks v. Vasquez, 908 F.2d 490, 491 

(9th Cir. 1990). 

Here, the petition does not meet the pleading requirements of Rule 2(c). Accordingly, the 

court will summarily dismiss the petition. Petitioner will be granted thirty days to file an 

amended petition that complies with Rule 2(c) and all other applicable rules. As petitioner has 

not shown good cause for any other extension of time, his July 19, 2016 motion will be denied.

In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 

1. Petitioner’s request for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 6) is granted;

2. The petition is dismissed without prejudice pursuant to Habeas Rule 2(c); 

3. Petitioner is granted thirty days from the date of this order to file an amended petition 

as described above; 

4. Petitioner’s failure to timely file an amended petition will result in dismissal of this 

action; and 

5. Petitioner’s motion for extension of time (ECF No. 5) is denied. 

Dated: August 12, 2016

2 / hunt1505.R2(c)

_____________________________________

CAROLYN K. DELANEY

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:16-cv-01505-CKD Document 10 Filed 08/12/16 Page 2 of 2