Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-01204/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-01204-2/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)

---

1

17-cv-1204-GPC-BLM

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

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MIKE E. MITCHELL,

Petitioner,

v.

DIR. OF CORRECTIONS,

Respondent.

Case No.: 17-cv-1204-GPC-BLM

ORDER DISMISSING CASE 

WITHOUT PREJUDICE AND WITH 

LEAVE TO AMEND

Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed a petition for writ of habeas 

corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 on May 30, 2017. (ECF No. 1.) On July 25, 2017, 

this Court dismissed the case without prejudice and with leave to amend because 

Petitioner had failed to satisfy the filing fee requirement, had failed to name a proper 

respondent, and had failed to allege exhaustion of his state judicial remedies. (ECF No. 

2.) Petitioner was given until September 11, 2017, to pay the $5.00 filing fee or submit 

adequate proof of his inability to pay the fee and submit a first amended petition that 

cured the pleading deficiencies outlined in the July 25, 2017 Order.

On August 16, 2017, Petitioner filed a motion to proceed in forma pauperis which 

the Court granted on August 18, 2017. (ECF Nos. 3, 6.) On September 11, 2017, 

Petitioner filed an “Amended Complaint” (ECF No. 10), which the Court construes as an 

amended petition. 

Case 3:17-cv-01204-GPC-BLM Document 11 Filed 09/20/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 4
2

17-cv-1204-GPC-BLM

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

FAILURE TO STATE GROUNDS FOR RELIEF IN PETITION

Rule 2(c) of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases states that the petition must 

“specify all grounds for relief available to the petitioner,” and “state the facts supporting 

each ground.” See also Boehme v. Maxwell, 423 F.2d 1056, 1058 (9th Cir. 1970) (trial 

court’s dismissal of federal habeas proceeding affirmed where petitioner made 

conclusory allegations instead of factual allegations showing that he was entitled to 

relief). Here, Petitioner has violated Rule 2(c). While courts should interpret pro se 

pleadings liberally, see Zichko v. Idaho, 247 F.3d 1015, 1020 (9th Cir. 2001), this does 

not require the court to ferret out unstated grounds for relief. 

The Court finds that the amended petition contains indecipherable allegations and 

asserts no grounds for relief. This Court would have to engage in an exceedingly tenuous 

analysis in order to attempt to identify and make sense of the amended petition. As a 

result, the Court is unable to conclude that there is any “real possibility of constitutional 

error.” Blackledge v. Allison, 431 U.S. 63, 75 n.7 (1977).

FAILURE TO STATE A COGNIZABLE FEDERAL CLAIM

It also appears that a § 2254 petition may not be the appropriate vehicle for 

Petitioner to pursue the relief he seeks. Such petitions may assert only that a person “is in 

custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.” 28 

U.S.C. § 2254(a). Here, Petitioner claims prison officials are engaging in behavior that 

prevents him from pursuing “an adequate defense and/or appeal.” (Am. Pet., ECF No. 10 

at 1.) He also alleges that “prison conditions [are] not permitting [him] to meet court[’s] 

stringent standards.” (Id.) Without the benefit of further allegations, the Court cannot 

determine whether Petitioner is asserting that he is being held in custody by a state in 

violation of federal law. If Petitioner seeks to challenge the conditions of his 

confinement, he must file an action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. See Nettle v. Grounds, 830 

F.3d 922, 927 (9th Cir. 2016). 

The Court warns Petitioner that he must also exhaust state judicial remedies before 

seeking relief under § 2254. State prisoners who wish to challenge their state court 

Case 3:17-cv-01204-GPC-BLM Document 11 Filed 09/20/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 4
3

17-cv-1204-GPC-BLM

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

conviction must first exhaust state judicial remedies. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)–(c); 

Granberry v. Greer, 481 U.S. 129, 133-34 (1987). To exhaust state judicial remedies, a 

California state prisoner must present the California Supreme Court with a fair 

opportunity to rule on the merits of every issue raised in his or her federal habeas 

petition. Granberry, 481 U.S. at 133–34. For example, “[i]f 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 v. Henry, 513 U.S. 364, 366 (1995).

The Court also cautions Petitioner that a one-year period of limitation applies to a 

petition for a writ of habeas corpus by a person in custody pursuant to the judgment of a 

State court. The limitation period runs from the latest of:

(A) the date on which the judgment became final by the conclusion of 

direct review or the expiration of the time for seeking such review;

(B) the date on which the impediment to filing an application created 

by State action in violation of the Constitution or laws of the United States is 

removed, if the applicant was prevented from filing by such State action;

(C) the date on which the constitutional right asserted was initially 

recognized by the Supreme Court, if the right has been newly recognized by 

the Supreme Court and made retroactively applicable to cases on collateral 

review; or

(D) the date on which the factual predicate of the claim or claims 

presented could have been discovered through the exercise of due diligence.

28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1). This statute of limitations does not run while a properly 

filed state habeas corpus petition is pending. 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(2); see Nino v. 

Galaza, 183 F.3d 1003, 1006 (9th Cir. 1999). But see Artuz v. Bennett, 531 U.S. 4,

8 (2000) (holding that “an application is ‘properly filed’ when its delivery and 

acceptance [by the appropriate court officer for placement into the record] are in 

compliance with the applicable laws and rules governing filings.”). Absent some 

other basis for tolling, however, the statute of limitations does run while a federal 

Case 3:17-cv-01204-GPC-BLM Document 11 Filed 09/20/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 4
4

17-cv-1204-GPC-BLM

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

habeas petition is pending. Duncan v. Walker, 533 U.S. 167, 181–82 (2001).

CONCLUSION

The Court DISMISSES this action without prejudice and with leave to amend. To 

have this case reopened, Petitioner must, no later than November 24, 2017, file a 

Second Amended Petition that cures the pleading deficiencies described above. 

Petitioner is advised that if he has not submitted a second amended petition—

asserting a cognizable challenge to his custody based on a violation of federal law and 

alleging exhaustion of his state court remedies with regard to any claims—by November 

24, 2017, he will have to start over by filing a completely new habeas petition in this 

Court. See In re Turner, 101 F.3d 1323 (9th Cir. 1997).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 20, 2017

Case 3:17-cv-01204-GPC-BLM Document 11 Filed 09/20/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 4