Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-01286/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-01286-7/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 28:2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus

---

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 

KENNETH O. OWENS, 

Petitioner, 

v. 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF 

CALIFORNIA, et al., 

Respondents. 

No. 2:15-cv-01286 KJM GGH P 

ORDER 

Procedural History 

 Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding in pro se, filed an application for a writ of habeas 

corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 and a motion for stay and abeyance on June 18, 2015. ECF 

Nos. 1, 2. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 

636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 

 On July 18, 2015, the undersigned issued an Order and Findings and Recommendations 

ordering petitioner to show cause why the petitioner should not be dismissed for failure to exhaust 

his state court remedies and recommended that his motion for stay and abeyance be denied. ECF 

No. 7. On October 7, 2015, the Findings and Recommendations were adopted by the presiding 

District Judge and the resolution of the order to show cause was referred back to the undersigned. 

ECF No. 10. On October 19, 2015, the undersigned recommended that the petition be dismissed 

without prejudice due to petitioner’s failure to exhaust his claims, which the presiding District 

Case 2:15-cv-01286-DJC-AC Document 26 Filed 01/24/19 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 

27 

28 

2

Judge adopted on January 11, 2016. ECF Nos. 11, 12. On January 28, 2016, petitioner filed a 

letter that the court construed as a motion for relief from judgment. ECF Nos. 14, 15. On 

February 8, 2016, the undersigned found that petitioner did not meet the necessary requisites for 

that relief and accordingly recommended that the petition be dismissed. ECF No. 15. Shortly 

after the filing of the Findings and Recommendations, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals decided 

Mena v. Long, 813 F.3d 907 (9th Cir. 2016). Consequently, on March 18, 2016 the presiding 

District Judge referred the matter back to the undersigned for further consideration as to whether 

petitioner qualified for stay and abeyance under Mena. ECF No. 16. On March 28, 2016, the 

undersigned ordered petitioner to file a second motion for relief from judgment, if any, within 30 

days. ECF No. 17. Petitioner was further notified that if no motion was filed, the court would 

reconsider the existing motion for relief from judgment, ECF No. 14, in light of Mena. ECF No. 

17. After no renewed motion for relief from judgment was filed by petitioner, the undersigned 

withdrew its February 8, 2016 findings and recommendations and recommended that the court 

grant petitioner a stay and hold his pending petition in abeyance until the pending state court 

exhaustion proceedings had been completed. ECF No. 18. Prior to the presiding District Judge 

adopting the February 8, 2016 Findings and Recommendations and granting petitioner a stay and 

holding the petition in abeyance, ECF No. 20, petitioner filed his first amended petition 

acknowledging that he had completed exhausting all his claims with the state. ECF Nos. 23, 24, 

25. Petitioner was granted a stay of this proceeding on January 5, 2017. ECF No. 20. The court 

now lifts the stay. 

The First Amended Petition 

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 “notice pleading is not sufficient, for the 

petition is expected to state facts that point to a real possibility of constitutional error.” Advisory 

Case 2:15-cv-01286-DJC-AC Document 26 Filed 01/24/19 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 

27 

28 

3

Committee Notes to Rule 4; see Blackledge v. Allison, 431 U.S. 63, 75, n.7 (1977). 

 Here, it is unclear to the court which federal claims petitioner is seeking to raise in his 

petition. Reviewing the petition and supporting documentation, it appears to the court that 

petitioner is seeking to raise exhausted and unexhausted claims as well as state law claims. 

However, it is confusing to decipher petitioner’s claims in its current form. Accordingly, the 

petition fails to comply with Rule 2(c), Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. Therefore, the 

petition is dismissed with leave to amend. Rule 4, Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. In the 

amended petition, petitioner must clearly set forth each federal claim for relief and summarize the 

facts he alleges support each of the identified claims. Petitioner should do his best to utilize 

headings to clearly delineate one claim from the next. Moreover, petitioner must show that each 

federal claim he raises in his amended petition has been properly exhausted through his state 

court remedies. 

 Finally, petitioner is not required to append exhibits to his petition. However, to avoid 

duplication on the court’s docket, if petitioner wishes to append the exhibits from his first 

amended petition (ECF No. 23) to his second amended petition, he may ask the Clerk of the Court 

to do so. 

Conclusion 

 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 

 1. Petitioner’s application for writ of habeas corpus is dismissed with leave to amend 

within thirty days from the date of this order;1

 2. Any amended petition must bear the case number assigned to this action and the title 

“Second Amended Petition”; and 

 3. The Clerk of the Court is directed to send petitioner the court’s form application for 

writ of habeas corpus used by this district. 

Dated: January 24, 2019 

 /s/ Gregory G. Hollows 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

 

1

 By setting this deadline the court is making no finding or representation that the petition is not 

subject to dismissal as untimely. 

Case 2:15-cv-01286-DJC-AC Document 26 Filed 01/24/19 Page 3 of 3