Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-00208/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-00208-1/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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DONALD KENDRICKS COOK,

Petitioner, No. CIV-07-0208 ALA HC

vs.

BEN CURRY, et al., 

Respondents. ORDER

 /

Pending before the court are “Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss under Rule 4” (doc. 6),

Petitioner’s “Motion for Stay and Abeyance of Petitioner’s Existing 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition”

(doc. 9), Petitioner’s “Motion for Leave to Correct any Ambiguity in Petitioner’s Existing 28

U.S.C. § 2254 Petition of Pages Regarding Claims I & II” (doc. 10) and Petitioner’s “Motion to

Amend His Existing Federal Habeas Petition” (doc. 11). 

On May 10, 2007, Respondents moved to dismiss claims one and two of Petitioner’s six

claims for habeas relief, arguing that “[c]laim one is plainly missing material and key pages of

the argument, and claim two is simply not included in the petition.” Motion to Dismiss at 1. 

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

entitled to relief in the district court,” a district court “must dismiss the petition.” Rule 4, Rules

Case 2:07-cv-00208-ALA Document 16 Filed 12/20/07 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

1

 Petitioner’s motion to correct requests the same relief as his motion for leave to amend,

and is denied on grounds of mootness. 

2

Governing Section 2254 Petitions. Further, the petition must “specify all the grounds for relief

available to the petitioner . . . state the facts supporting each ground” and “state the relief

requested.” Rule 2(c)(1)-(3). However, summary dismissal is only appropriate “where the

allegations in the petition are ‘vague [or] conclusory’ or ‘palpably incredible.’” Hendricks v.

Vasquez, 908 F.2d 490, 491 (9th Cir. 1990) (citation omitted). 

Petitioner’s first claim is not subject to dismissal under this standard. The claim alleges a

constitutional violation, and describes the facts underlying that violation. See Petition at 9. 

Therefore, Respondents’ motion is denied as to Petitioner’s first claim.

Petitioner’s second claim is missing from his original petition. However, as a detailed

declaration attached to Petitioner’s Opposition to Respondents’ Motion explains, this was an

inadvertent filing error. The Amended Petition Petitioner filed on June 6, 2007, differs in only

one respect from his original petition: it includes the missing page in which Petitioner asserts his

second claim for relief. See Amended Petition (doc. 12). Respondents do not contest

Petitioner’s assertions regarding the inadvertent filing mistake. Therefore, Respondents’ motion

to dismiss is also denied as to Petitioner’s second claim. We grant Petitioner leave to amend so

that the petition subject to adjudication includes the missing second claim. See Fed. R. Civ. P.

15(a)(2) (“The court should freely give leave when justice so requires.”). 

IT IS ORDERED DENYING “Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss under Rule 4” (doc. 6). 

IT IS ALSO ORDERED GRANTING Petitioner’s “Motion to Amend His Existing Federal

Habeas Petition” (doc. 11). IT IS ORDERED DENYING Petitioner’s “Motion for Leave to

Correct any Ambiguity in Petitioner’s Existing 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition of Pages Regarding

Claims I & II” (doc. 10)1

 and “Motion for Stay and Abeyance of Petitioner’s Existing 28 U.S.C.

Case 2:07-cv-00208-ALA Document 16 Filed 12/20/07 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

2

 Under certain circumstances, a district court may stay a petition that asserts both

exhausted and unexhausted claims “while the petitioner exhausts his unexhausted claims.” 

Robbins v. Carey, 481 F.3d 1143, 1147 n.1 (9th Cir. 2007). However, neither party asserts that

Petitioner’s claims are unexhausted. Therefore, a motion to stay and abey is at this point

premature. 

3

§ 2254 Petition” (doc. 9).2

FINALLY, Respondents are directed to file a response to Petitioner’s amended petition

within thirty-five (35) days from the date of this order. 

If the response to the petition is an answer, Petitioner’s traverse, if any, shall be filed and

served within thirty-five (35) days after service of the answer.

If the response to the habeas petition is a motion, Petitioner’s opposition or statement of

non-opposition shall be filed and served within thirty-five (35) days after service of the motion,

and Respondents’ reply, if any, shall be filed and served within twenty-one (21) days thereafter. 

/////

DATED: December 20, 2007

/s/ Arthur Alarcón 

UNITED STATES CIRCUIT JUDGE

Sitting by Designation

Case 2:07-cv-00208-ALA Document 16 Filed 12/20/07 Page 3 of 3