Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-06571/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-06571-0/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOE REYES, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

)

v. )

)

)

JIM HAMLET, )

)

Respondent. )

 )

1:04-cv-06571-OWW-TAG HC

ORDER TO AMEND AMENDED PETITION

(COURT DOC. 4)

ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT TO

SEND PETITIONER BLANK FORM PETITION

Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding with a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant

to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 

The instant petition was originally filed on November 15, 2002, in the U.S. District Court for

the Northern District of California. (Court Doc. 1). On November 18, 2004, the petition was

ordered transferred to the Eastern District of California. (Court Doc. 1). On February 23, 2005, the

Court ordered Petitioner to file an amended petition because the original form petition did not, as

submitted, contain all of the required pages. (Doc. 3). On March 16, 2005, Petitioner filed an

amended petition alleging the following grounds for relief: (1) newly discovered evidence of

Petitioner’s innocence; (2) ineffective assistance of trial counsel; (3) newly discovered evidence

showing Petitioner’s innocence, specifically an admission by Joe Navarro that heroin found at

Petitioner’s residence belonged to Navarro; and (4) Petitioner’s sentence of twenty-five years-to-life

violates the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment. (Doc. 4)

Case 1:04-cv-06571-OWW -TAG Document 5 Filed 05/20/05 Page 1 of 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

DISCUSSION

Rule 4 of the Rules Governing § 2254 Cases requires the Court to make a preliminary review

of each petition for writ of habeas corpus. The Court must dismiss a petition "[i]f it plainly appears

from the face of the petition . . . that the petitioner is not entitled to relief." Rule 4 of the Rules

Governing 2254 Cases; Hendricks v. Vasquez, 908 F.2d 490 (9th Cir. 1990). Otherwise, the Court

will order Respondent to respond to the petition. Rule 5 of the Rules governing § 2254 Cases.

A. Failure to State A Constitutional Claim in Ground One.

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

that “he is in custody in violation of the Constitution . . . .” 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (a). A petition for writ

of habeas corpus must therefore specify the grounds for relief. Rule 2(c) of the Rules Governing §

2254 Cases. The petition must also allege the facts surrounding the petitioner’s incarceration. 28

U.S.C. § 2242. The petitioner must make specific factual allegations that would entitle him to

habeas corpus relief if they are true. O’Bremski v. Maass, 915 F.2d 418, 420 (9th Cir. 1990); United

States v. Poopola, 881 F.2d 811, 812 (9th Cir. 1989). 

In addition, a petition presented in pro se must be upon the form approved by the court. Rule

2 of the Rules Governing § 2254 Cases; Local Rule 81-190. This rule ensures that all information

needed is before the court. Each ground for relief must be clearly stated and allege what federal

constitutional violation has occurred, along with providing facts that support the grounds for relief. 

If a petition contains no grounds entitling the petitioner to habeas corpus relief, the court must

dismiss the petition. Rule 4 of the Rules Governing § 2254 Cases. 

Here, Ground One alleges simply that “There is newly discovered evidence which shows

petitioner’s innocence of the crimes he is convicted for.” (Doc. 4, p. 5). Petitioner does not list any

facts to support this claim. In a claim of “actual innocence”, the petitioner must show that the

constitutional error alleged, e.g., the petitioner’s inability to present the newly discovered evidence at

trial, “has probably resulted in the conviction of one who is actually innocent.” Bousely v. United

States, 523 U.S. 614, 623 (1998), quoting Murray v. Carrier, 477 U.S. 478, 496 (1986). Petitioner

must demonstrate that in light of the evidence no reasonable juror would have found him guilty. 

Schlup v. Delo, 513 U.S. 298, 329 (1995). 

Case 1:04-cv-06571-OWW -TAG Document 5 Filed 05/20/05 Page 2 of 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

Unlike Ground Three, Ground One falls far short of this standard. Petitioner provides no

facts to support this claim, and therefore the Court cannot make a preliminary determination that

Ground One, as presently pleaded, involves newly discovered evidence, the absence of which would 

“probably result in the conviction of one who is actually innocent.” Bousely, 523 U.S. at 623. 

Moreover, it is unclear from the amended petition whether Ground One and Ground Three,

both of which allege “newly discovered evidence” that points to Petitioner’s innocence, are

duplicative or whether, instead, Petitioner is actually referring to two separate and distinct instances

of newly discovered evidence. If the former, then Petitioner should only raise one claim of “newly

discovered evidence,” being careful to list the relevant facts in support of that claim; if the latter,

then Petitioner must explain the facts supporting each instance of newly discovered evidence in such

a way that the Court can determine whether any reasonable juror would have found Petitioner guilty

had the new evidence been presented at trial. Schlup, 513 U.S. at 329.

B. Exhaustion of Claims

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). 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

Case 1:04-cv-06571-OWW -TAG Document 5 Filed 05/20/05 Page 3 of 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

(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). In Duncan, the United States Supreme Court

reiterated the rule as follows: 

In Picard v. Connor, 404 U.S. 270, 275 . . . (1971), we said that exhaustion 

of state remedies requires that petitioners "fairly presen[t]" federal claims to the 

state courts in order to give the State the "'opportunity to pass upon and correct 

alleged violations of the prisoners' federal rights" (some internal quotation marks

omitted). If state courts are to be given the opportunity to correct alleged violations 

of prisoners' federal rights, they must surely be alerted to the fact that the prisoners 

are asserting claims under the United States Constitution. If a habeas petitioner 

wishes to claim that an evidentiary ruling at a state court trial denied him the due 

process of law guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment, he must say so, not only 

in federal court, but in state court. 

Duncan, 513 U.S. at 365-366. The Ninth Circuit examined the rule further, stating:

Our rule is that a state prisoner has not "fairly presented" (and thus 

exhausted) his federal claims in state court unless he specifically indicated to 

that court that those claims were based on federal law. See Shumway v. Payne, 

223 F.3d 982, 987-88 (9th Cir. 2000). Since the Supreme Court's decision in 

Duncan, this court has held that the petitioner must make the federal basis of the 

claim explicit either by citing federal law or the decisions of federal courts, even

if the federal basis is “self-evident," Gatlin v. Madding, 189 F.3d 882, 889 

(9th Cir. 1999) (citing Anderson v. Harless, 459 U.S. 4, 7 . . . (1982), or the 

underlying claim would be decided under state law on the same considerations 

that would control resolution of the claim on federal grounds. Hiivala v. Wood, 

195 F3d 1098, 1106-07 (9th Cir. 1999); Johnson v. Zenon, 88 F.3d 828, 830-31 

(9th Cir. 1996); . . . .

In Johnson, we explained that the petitioner must alert the state court to 

the fact that the relevant claim is a federal one without regard to how similar the 

state and federal standards for reviewing the claim may be or how obvious the 

violation of federal law is. 

Lyons v. Crawford, 232 F.3d 666, 668-669 (9th Cir. 2000) (italics added). 

The current petition for writ of habeas corpus does not state that Petitioner has presented

Grounds One and Three (newly discovered evidence of innocence) to the California Supreme Court. 

Instead, Petitioner indicates that he raised the issue in the Court of Appeal in a petition for writ of

habeas corpus. (Doc. 4, p. 4). The decision of the Court of Appeal, Fifth Appellate District, denying

Petitioner’s habeas petition, however, makes no mention of the issue of newly discovered evidence. 

Since Petitioner has not included a copy of the habeas corpus petition he filed in the California

Supreme Court, and since he has not alleged that he raised this issue in that court, the Court is not in

a position to make an initial determination that Petitioner has fully exhausted this issue. 

///

Case 1:04-cv-06571-OWW -TAG Document 5 Filed 05/20/05 Page 4 of 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

Moreover, given the ambiguity in the amended petition, in which Petitioner raises two issues

of newly discovered evidence, if Ground One and Three are merely duplicative, Petitioner must

present information that would establish that he has fully exhausted this claim in the California

Supreme Court. If, on the other hand, Petitioner is actually alleging two separate instances of newly

discovered evidence, he must allege facts that would establish that both claims have been fully

exhausted in the California Supreme Court.

If Petitioner has not presented all of his claims to the California Supreme Court, the Court

must dismiss the petition. See Calderon v. United States Dist. Court, 107 F.3d 756, 760 (9th Cir.

1997) (en banc); Greenawalt v. Stewart, 105 F.3d 1268, 1273 (9th Cir. 1997). It is possible,

however, that Petitioner has presented these claims to the California Supreme Court and simply

neglected to provide that information to this Court. Thus, in the amended petition, Petitioner must

inform the Court if his claims of newly discovered evidence have been presented to the California

Supreme Court, and if possible, provide the Court with a copy of the habeas corpus petition filed in

the California Supreme Court. Without knowing what claims have been presented to the California

Supreme Court, the Court is unable to proceed to the merits of the petition.

ORDER

Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED: 

1. Petitioner SHALL FILE AN AMENDED PETITION stating with particularity the

grounds raised in each claim for relief within thirty (30) days of the date of service of

this order, and providing sufficient information for the Court to determine whether all

of the claims have been fully exhausted. The amended petition should be clearly and

boldly titled “AMENDED PETITION,” contain the appropriate case number, and be

an original signed under penalty of perjury. Petitioner should also note that every

pleading to which an amendment is permitted must be retyped or rewritten and filed

so that it is complete in itself without reference to the prior or superseded pleading. 

Local Rule 15-220. 

2. The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to send Petitioner a blank form petition for state

prisoners filing pursuant to § 2254. 

Case 1:04-cv-06571-OWW -TAG Document 5 Filed 05/20/05 Page 5 of 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 a

Recommendation that the Petition be dismissed pursuant to Local Rule 11-110.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 19, 2005 /s/ Theresa A. Goldner 

j6eb3d UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:04-cv-06571-OWW -TAG Document 5 Filed 05/20/05 Page 6 of 6