Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-00895/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-00895-5/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

Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding through retained counsel with a petition for writ of 

habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Petitioner filed the instant petition on March 13, 2014, in the U.S. District Court for the 

Northern District of California, and was transferred to this Court on May 14, 2014. (Doc. 14). It 

appears that Petitioner is challenging a 2010 conviction by plea of nolo contendere in the Kern County 

Superior Court, Bakersfield, California. Beyond that, the original petition is a collection of unrelated 

statements, arguments, and quotations, none of which are intelligible to the Court or comprehensible 

as a cognizable federal habeas claim. (Doc. 1). To the contrary, many of Petitioner’s “claims” in the 

original petition appear to indicate that he is asserting a civil rights complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §

1983. Petitioner’s claim of “damages” supports this view.

GARY FRANCIS FISHER,

 Petitioner,

v.

RICK BARRIOS, et al.,

Respondent.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 1:14-cv-00895-AWI-JLT

ORDER REQUIRING PETITIONER TO SUBMIT 

A SECOND AMENDED PETITION

30-DAY DEADLINE

ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF THE COURT TO 

SEND PETITIONER A FORM FOR FILING 

HABEAS CORPUS PETITION PURSUANT TO 28 

U.S.C. § 2254

Case 1:14-cv-00895-AWI-JLT Document 25 Filed 07/02/14 Page 1 of 6
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

However, before the Court could conduct a preliminary screening of the petition, Petitioner 

filed a first amended petition on June 18, 2014. (Doc. 24). The 6-page handwritten first amended 

petition does not appear to state any kind of claim sounding in habeas corpus. Rather, it appears to 

assert a need for additional court records and medical files. However, nowhere in the first amended 

petition are the specific records and files designated. Nor does Petitioner indicate precisely why those 

records and files are necessary nor to what they might pertain. 

A. Procedural Grounds for Summary Dismissal.

Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases provides in pertinent part:

If it plainly appears from the petition and any attached exhibits that the petitioner is not entitled 

to relief in the district court, the judge must dismiss the petition and direct the clerk to notify 

the petitioner.

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. A petition for habeas corpus should not be dismissed 

without leave to amend unless it appears that no tenable claim for relief can be pleaded were such 

leave granted. Jarvis v. Nelson, 440 F.2d 13, 14 (9th Cir. 1971). 

B. Insufficient Information And Failure To State A Cognizable Habeas Claim.

A preliminary review of the first amended petition indicates that Petitioner has not provided 

sufficient information regarding his claims for this case to proceed. 

The basic scope of habeas corpus is prescribed by statute. Subsection (c) of Section 2241 of 

Title 28 of the United States Code provides that habeas corpus shall not extend to a prisoner unless he 

is “in custody in violation of the Constitution.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a) states that the federal courts shall 

entertain a petition for 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. 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). Furthermore, in order to succeed in a petition pursuant 

to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, Petitioner must demonstrate that the adjudication of his claim in state court 

resulted in a decision that was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly 

Case 1:14-cv-00895-AWI-JLT Document 25 Filed 07/02/14 Page 2 of 6
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

established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States; or 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). 

Petitioner does not allege a violation of the Constitution or federal law, nor does he argue that 

he is in custody in violation of the Constitution or federal law. Petitioner does not allege that the 

adjudication of his claims in state court “resulted in a decision that was contrary to, or involved an 

unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, . . . or resulted in a decision that was 

based on an unreasonable determination of the facts . . . .” 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 

Moreover, Petitioner has provided so little information in the first amended petition that the 

Court is unable to discern any claims at all, let alone cognizable federal habeas claims. Rule 2 of the 

Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases provides that the petition:

“...shall specify all the grounds for relief which are available to the petitioner and of 

which he has or by the exercise of reasonable diligence should have knowledge and shall 

set forth in summary form the facts supporting each of the grounds thus specified.”

Rule 2(c), Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. Petitioner must also clearly state the relief sought in 

the petition. Id. Additionally, the Advisory Committee Notes to Rule 4 explains that “...’[N]otice’

pleading is not sufficient, for the petition is expected to state facts that point to a ‘real possibility of 

constitutional error.’” Advisory Committee Notes to Rule 4; see Blackledge v. Allison, 431 U.S. 63, 

75, n. 7, 97 S.Ct. 1621 (1977). 

Here, Petitioner has submitted a first amended petition that fails to comply with the 

requirements of Rule 2(c). Indeed, the Court cannot discern any claims for relief from the information 

provided nor what kind of relief Petitioner might be seeking. It is Petitioner’s responsibility to specify 

all grounds for relief and to provide sufficient factual allegations for the Court to determine what 

claims Petitioner is seeking to raise and whether those claims state the kind of federal constitutional 

violations upon which this Court’s habeas jurisdiction is predicated. Petitioner has failed to meet these 

minimal pleading requirements. Accordingly, Petitioner will be required to submit a Second

Amended Petition in which he clearly and succinctly sets forth all of his claims, together with 

supporting factual allegations, in order for this case to proceed.

Case 1:14-cv-00895-AWI-JLT Document 25 Filed 07/02/14 Page 3 of 6
4

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

C. Exhaustion of Remedies.

A petitioner who is in state custody and wishes to collaterally challenge his conviction by a 

petition for writ of habeas corpus must exhaust state judicial remedies. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(1). The 

exhaustion doctrine is based on comity to the state court and gives the state court the initial 

opportunity to correct the state's alleged constitutional deprivations. Coleman v. Thompson, 501 U.S. 

722, 731 (1991); Rose v. Lundy, 455 U.S. 509, 518 (1982); Buffalo v. Sunn, 854 F.2d 1158, 1163 (9th

Cir. 1988). 

A petitioner can satisfy the exhaustion requirement by providing the highest state court with a 

full and fair opportunity to consider each claim before presenting it to the federal court. Duncan v. 

Henry, 513 U.S. 364, 365 (1995); Picard v. Connor, 404 U.S. 270, 276 (1971); Johnson v. Zenon, 88 

F.3d 828, 829 (9th Cir. 1996). In this instance, the highest state court would be the California Supreme 

Court. A federal court will find that the highest state court was given a full and fair opportunity to 

hear a claim if the petitioner has presented the highest state court with the claim's factual and legal 

basis. Duncan, 513 U.S. at 365 (legal basis); Kenney v. Tamayo-Reyes, 504 U.S. 1, 112 S.Ct. 1715, 

1719 (1992) (factual basis). 

Additionally, the petitioner must have specifically told the state court that he was raising a 

federal constitutional claim. Duncan, 513 U.S. at 365-66; Lyons v. Crawford, 232 F.3d 666, 669 (9th 

Cir.2000), amended, 247 F.3d 904 (2001); Hiivala v. Wood, 195 F.3d 1098, 1106 (9th Cir.1999); 

Keating v. Hood, 133 F.3d 1240, 1241 (9th Cir.1998). 

Here, Petitioner has not provided any information regarding his efforts to fully exhaust his 

claims in the state courts. Without this information, the Court cannot proceed. In his second amended 

petition, Petitioner must provide the specific information regarding what claims he has raised in the 

California Supreme Court, when those claims were denied, and provide copies, if he has them, of the 

state high court’s orders denying those claims.

D. Failure to Name A Proper Respondent.

A petitioner seeking habeas corpus relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 must name the state officer 

having custody of him as the respondent to the petition. Rule 2 (a) of the Rules Governing § 2254 

Cases; Ortiz-Sandoval v. Gomez, 81 F.3d 891, 894 (9th Cir. 1996); Stanley v. California Supreme 

Case 1:14-cv-00895-AWI-JLT Document 25 Filed 07/02/14 Page 4 of 6
5

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

Court, 21 F.3d 359, 360 (9th Cir. 1994). Normally, the person having custody of an incarcerated 

petitioner is the warden of the prison in which the petitioner is incarcerated because the warden has 

“day-to-day control” over the petitioner. Brittingham v. United States, 982 F.2d 378, 379 (9th Cir. 

1992); see also, Stanley, at 360. However, the chief officer in charge of state penal institutions is also 

appropriate. Ortiz, 81 F.3d at 894; Stanley, 21 F.3d at 360. Where a petitioner is on probation or 

parole, the proper respondent is his probation or parole officer and the official in charge of the parole 

or probation agency or state correctional agency. Id. 

Here, Petitioner has named as Respondent a variety of individuals, including a federal customs 

agent and a state judge. However, he has not named the warden or chief officer of the institution 

where Petitioner is confined and, thus, the named Respondents do not have day-to-day control over 

Petitioner. Petitioner is presently confined at the California Health Care Facility, Stockton, California. 

The current director or warden of that facility is Ron Rackley. Ron Rackley is the person Petitioner 

should name as Respondent.

Petitioner’s failure to name a proper respondent requires dismissal of his habeas petition for 

lack of jurisdiction. Stanley, 21 F.3d at 360; Olson v. California Adult Auth., 423 F.2d 1326, 1326 

(9th Cir. 1970); see also, Billiteri v. United States Bd. Of Parole, 541 F.2d 938, 948 (2nd Cir. 1976). 

However, the Court will give Petitioner the opportunity to cure this defect by amending the 

petition to name a proper respondent, such as the warden of his facility. See West v. Louisiana, 

478 F.2d 1026, 1029 (5th Cir.1973), vacated in part on other grounds, 510 F.2d 363 (5th Cir.1975) 

(en banc) (allowing petitioner to amend petition to name proper respondent); Ashley v. State of 

Washington, 394 F.2d 125 (9th Cir. 1968) (same). In any amended petition he might file, Petitioner 

must name a proper respondent.

Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The instant first amended petition for writ of habeas corpus is hereby DISMISSED. 

Petitioner is GRANTED 30 days from the date of service of this Order to SUBMIT a 

SECOND AMENDED PETITION that is in compliance with this Order. The Clerk of the 

Court is DIRECTED to send Petitioner a blank form petition for petitioners filing pursuant 

to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 

Case 1:14-cv-00895-AWI-JLT Document 25 Filed 07/02/14 Page 5 of 6
6

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

Petitioner is forewarned that his failure to comply with this Order may result in an Order of 

Dismissal or a Recommendation that the petition be dismissed pursuant to Local Rule 110.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 2, 2014 /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:14-cv-00895-AWI-JLT Document 25 Filed 07/02/14 Page 6 of 6