Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-00046/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-00046-1/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

27

28

K:\COMMON\EVERYONE\_EFILE-PROSE\DMS\11cv0046_dismissFAP.wpd, 21711 -1- 11cv0046

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MICHAEL JENNISON, Civil No. 11-0046 DMS (CAB)

Petitioner,

ORDER DISMISSING CASE WITHOUT

PREJUDICE AND WITH LEAVE TO

AMEND

v.

UNKNOWN, 

Respondent.

On January 7, 2011, Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed a Petition for Writ

of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The Court dismissed the petition without

prejudice and with leave to amend because Petitioner had not named a proper respondent. (See

Order dated Jan. 14, 2011 [doc. no. 2].) Petitioner was given until March 22, 2011 to file a First

Amended Petition which named a proper respondent. (Id.) On February 10, 2011, Petitioner

filed a First Amended Petition. (See doc. no. 4.) 

FAILURE TO STATE A COGNIZABLE FEDERAL CLAIM 

In his First Amended Petition, Petitioner names a proper respondent. However, in

accordance with Rule 4 of the rules governing § 2254 cases, Petitioner has failed to allege that

his state court conviction or sentence violates the Constitution of the United States.

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

Case 3:11-cv-00046-CAB Document 5 Filed 02/17/11 Page 1 of 2
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

K:\COMMON\EVERYONE\_EFILE-PROSE\DMS\11cv0046_dismissFAP.wpd, 21711 -2- 11cv0046

Title 28, United States Code, § 2254(a), sets forth the following scope of review for

federal habeas corpus claims:

The Supreme Court, a Justice thereof, a circuit judge, or a district

court shall entertain an application 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) (emphasis added). See Hernandez v. Ylst, 930 F.2d 714, 719 (9th Cir.

1991); Mannhalt v. Reed, 847 F.2d 576, 579 (9th Cir. 1988); Kealohapauole v. Shimoda, 800

F.2d 1463, 1464-65 (9th Cir. 1986). Thus, to present a cognizable federal habeas corpus claim

under § 2254, a state prisoner must allege both that he is in custody pursuant to a “judgment of

a State court,” and that he is in custody in “violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the

United States.” See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a). 

Here, Petitioner claims that “the judge stapled a newspaper article describing excluded

evidence to an exhibit and sent it in to the jury room where the jurors read it and consequently

found me guilty.” (Pet. at 6.) In no way does Petitioner claim he is “in custody in violation of

the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254. “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 v. Henry, 513 U.S. 364, 365-66 (1995) (emphasis added).

CONCLUSION

Accordingly, the Court DISMISSES this action without prejudice and with leave to

amend because Petitioner has failed to state a cognizable federal claim. To have this case

reopened, Petitioner must, no later than April 18, 2011, file a Second Amended Petition that

cures the pleading deficiencies set forth above. The Clerk of Court is directed to mail

Petitioner a blank Second Amended Petition form together with a copy of this Order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: February 17, 2011

HON. DANA M. SABRAW

United States District Judge

Case 3:11-cv-00046-CAB Document 5 Filed 02/17/11 Page 2 of 2