Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_07-cv-02249/USCOURTS-cand-4_07-cv-02249-2/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)

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

EDWARD JONES,

Petitioner,

 vs.

B. CURRY, Warden,

Respondent. /

No. C 07-2249 PJH (PR)

ORDER DISMISSING

PETITION WITH LEAVE TO

AMEND

Petitioner, a California prisoner currently incarcerated at the Correctional Training

Facility, has filed a pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 

BACKGROUND

Petitioner pled nolo contendere to a charge of second-degree murder in Los Angeles

County Superior Court. He did not appeal, but has filed several post-conviction actions in

state court in which he contends he raised the issues presented here. 

DISCUSSION

A. Standard of Review

This court may entertain a petition for a writ of habeas corpus "in behalf of a person

in custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court only on the ground that he is in

custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States." 28 U.S.C. §

2254(a). It shall "award the writ or issue an order directing the respondent to show cause

why the writ should not be granted, unless it appears from the application that the applicant

or person detained is not entitled thereto." Id. § 2243. 

///

Habeas corpus petitions must meet heightened pleading requirements. McFarland

Case 4:07-cv-02249-PJH Document 14 Filed 09/24/07 Page 1 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

v. Scott, 512 U.S. 849, 856 (1994). An application for a federal writ of habeas corpus filed

by a prisoner who is in state custody pursuant to a judgment of a state court must “specify

all the grounds for relief which are available to the petitioner ... and shall set forth in

summary form the facts supporting each of the grounds thus specified.” Rule 2(c) of the

Rules Governing § 2254 Cases, 28 U.S.C. foll. § 2254. “‘[N]otice’ pleading is not sufficient,

for the petition is expected to state facts that point to a ‘real possibility of constitutional

error.’” Rule 4 Advisory Committee Notes (quoting Aubut v. Maine, 431 F.2d 688, 689 (1st

Cir. 1970). “Habeas petitions which appear on their face to be legally insufficient are

subject to summary dismissal.” Calderon v. United States Dist. Court (Nicolaus), 98 F.3d

1102, 1108 (9th Cir. 1996) (Schroeder, J., concurring). 

B. Filing Fee

When the petition was received without a filing fee or application for leave to

proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”), the court sent petitioner a notice to that effect and gave

him thirty days to do one or the other. In response he wrote a letter saying that he sent the

five-dollar fee “long before I actually filed my writ with the court.” The court was unable to

locate these documents – having been sent before the petition they of course lacked any

case number – but they have now been located in case number C 03-02049-PJH, Jones v.

Lopez, a civil rights case which was dismissed on July 7, 2003, and the dismissal of which

was affirmed on appeal on May 11, 2006. The docket for that case shows that a five-dollar

filing fee was paid on March 30, 2007, and that a motion by petitioner to proceed IFP was

filed that day. The court has entered an order in that case to credit to filing fee to this case

and to file the IFP application in this case. The motion to proceed IFP will be denied as

moot, the filing fee having been paid.

C. Legal Claims

As grounds for federal habeas relief, petitioner asserts that: (1) his due process

rights are being violated by breach of the terms of his plea agreement; (2) his counsel and

the prosecution at the time of the plea led him to understand that under the agreement he

Case 4:07-cv-02249-PJH Document 14 Filed 09/24/07 Page 2 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

3

would serve only ten years; and (3) the Board of Prison Terms breached the plea

agreement.

As to claim one, petitioner does not say what term of the plea agreement was

breached nor what has happened that constitutes a breach. In claim two he may be

attacking the plea agreement itself by trying to claim that the plea was not knowing and

intelligent, but he does not actually allege that nor any other legal basis for the claim. And

it would be helpful to have a better explanation of what his claim is in issue three. For

these reasons, the petition will be dismissed with leave to amend. 

CONCLUSION 

For the foregoing reasons, 

1. Petitioner's motions for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (documents numbered

8 and 13 on the docket) are DENIED as moot.

2. The petition is DISMISSED with leave to amend within thirty days from the date

of this order. The amendment must include the caption and civil case number used in this

order and the words AMENDED PETITION on the first page. Failure to amend within the

designated time will result in the dismissal of these claims. 

3. Petitioner must put the case number of this case on every paper he submits for

filing and on every communication he sends to the court relating to this case. Failure to do

so is likely to result in the item being misfiled and not acted upon. 

4. Petitioner must keep the court informed of any change of address and must

comply with the court's orders in a timely fashion. Failure to do so may result in the

dismissal of this action for failure to prosecute pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure

41(b). See Martinez v. Johnson, 104 F.3d 769, 772 (5th Cir. 1997) (Rule 41(b) applicable

in habeas cases). 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 24, 2007. 

 PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON

United States District Judge

G:\PRO-SE\PJH\HC.07\JONES249.OSC.wpd 

Case 4:07-cv-02249-PJH Document 14 Filed 09/24/07 Page 3 of 3