Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-01367/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-01367-1/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

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

Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma 

pauperis with a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 

U.S.C. § 2254. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 636(c)(1), Petitioner has 

consented to the jurisdiction of the United States Magistrate Judge 

to conduct all further proceedings in the case, including the entry 

of final judgment, by manifesting his consent in a writing signed by 

Petitioner and filed on September 3, 2013 (doc. 7). Pending before 

the Court is the petition, which was filed on August 21, 2013, and 

transferred to this division of this district on August 27, 2013.

I. Screening the Petition

Rule 4 of the Rules Governing ' 2254 Cases in the United States 

MELVIN WARD,

 Petitioner,

v.

THE PEOPLE,

Respondents.

Case No. 1:13-cv-01367-SKO-HC

ORDER TO PETITIONER TO MOVE TO 

AMEND THE PETITION TO NAME A NEW 

RESPONDENT NO LATER THAN THIRTY 

DAYS AFTER SERVICE OF THIS ORDER

FILING DEADLINE: THIRTY (30) DAYS

ORDER DISMISSING PETITIONER’S STATE 

LAW CLAIM WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND

Case 1:13-cv-01367-SKO Document 8 Filed 09/23/13 Page 1 of 7
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

District Courts (Habeas Rules) requires the Court to make a 

preliminary review of each petition for writ of habeas corpus. The 

Court must summarily dismiss a petition "[i]f it plainly appears 

from the petition and any attached exhibits that the petitioner is 

not entitled to relief in the district court....@ Habeas Rule 4; 

O=Bremski v. Maass, 915 F.2d 418, 420 (9th Cir. 1990); see also

Hendricks v. Vasquez, 908 F.2d 490 (9th Cir. 1990). Habeas Rule 

2(c) requires that a petition 1) specify all grounds of relief 

available to the Petitioner; 2) state the facts supporting each 

ground; and 3) state the relief requested. Notice pleading is not 

sufficient; the petition must state facts that point to a real 

possibility of constitutional error. Rule 4, Advisory Committee 

Notes, 1976 Adoption; O=Bremski v. Maass, 915 F.2d at 420 (quoting 

Blackledge v. Allison, 431 U.S. 63, 75 n.7 (1977)). Allegations in 

a petition that are vague, conclusory, or palpably incredible are 

subject to summary dismissal. Hendricks v. Vasquez, 908 F.2d at 

491.

The Court may dismiss a petition for writ of habeas corpus 

either on its own motion under Habeas Rule 4, pursuant to the 

respondent's motion to dismiss, or after an answer to the petition 

has been filed. Advisory Committee Notes to Habeas Rule 8, 1976 

Adoption; see, Herbst v. Cook, 260 F.3d 1039, 1042-43 (9th Cir. 

2001). However, a petition for writ of habeas corpus should not be 

dismissed without leave to amend unless it appears that no tenable 

claim for relief can be pleaded were such leave granted. Jarvis v. 

Nelson, 440 F.2d 13, 14 (9th Cir. 1971).

Here, Petitioner alleges that he is an inmate of the California

Case 1:13-cv-01367-SKO Document 8 Filed 09/23/13 Page 2 of 7
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

Medical Facility at Vacaville, California, serving a seventeen-year 

sentence imposed in the Superior Court of the State of California, 

County of Kings, on May 24, 2011, for making criminal threats in 

violation of Cal. Pen. Code § 422. Petitioner raises several claims 

that appear to sound in due process, including 1) the insufficiency 

of the evidence to support the conviction because a witness was 

allowed to testify to a duty to warn when there was no threat, 2)

insufficiency of the evidence because words communicated exclusively

by a therapist pursuant to the therapist’s duty to warn should not 

constitute a violation of § 422, and 3) § 422 should be construed 

not to include statements made to a therapist and repeated by the 

therapist in order to avoid a denial of due process. Petitioner 

also raises a fourth claim essentially alleging that California’s 

public policy should preclude a conviction of making criminal 

threats based on a therapist’s warning to a third party regarding a 

patient’s communication to the therapist. 

II. Failure to Name a Proper Respondent

Petitioner named as Respondents “THE PEOPLE.” (Pet., doc. 1, 

1.) Petitioner is incarcerated at the California Medical Facility 

at Vacaville, California. The official website of the California 

Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) reflects that 

the warden at that facility is Brian Duffy.1

A petitioner who is seeking habeas corpus relief under 28 

U.S.C. § 2254 must name the state officer having custody of him as 

 

1

 The Court may take judicial notice of facts that are capable of accurate and 

ready determination by resort to sources whose accuracy cannot reasonably be 

questioned, including undisputed information posted on official websites. Fed. R. 

Evid. 201(b); United States v. Bernal-Obeso, 989 F.2d 331, 333 (9th Cir. 1993); 

Daniels-Hall v. National Education Association, 629 F.3d 992, 999 (9th Cir. 2010). 

The address of the official website for the CDCR is http://www.cdcr.ca.gov. 

Case 1:13-cv-01367-SKO Document 8 Filed 09/23/13 Page 3 of 7
4

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

the respondent to the petition. Habeas Rule 2(a); Ortiz-Sandoval v. 

Gomez, 81 F.3d 891, 894 (9th Cir. 1996); Stanley v. California 

Supreme Court, 21 F.3d 359, 360 (9th Cir. 1994). Generally, the 

person having custody of an incarcerated petitioner is the warden of 

the prison in which the petitioner is incarcerated because the 

warden has “day-to-day control over” the petitioner and thus can 

produce the petitioner. Brittingham v. United States, 982 F.2d 378, 

379 (9th Cir. 1992); see also, Stanley v. California Supreme Court, 

21 F.3d at 360. However, the chief officer in charge of state penal 

institutions, such as the Secretary of the CDCR, is also 

appropriate. Ortiz-Sandoval, 81 F.3d at 894; Stanley, 21 F.3d at 

360.

Petitioner’s failure to name a proper respondent may require 

dismissal of his habeas petition for a failure to name a person who 

can produce the petitioner in response to an order of the Court and 

thereby to secure personal jurisdiction. See, Smith v. Idaho, 392 

F.3d 350, 355 n.3 (9th Cir. 2004). This Court must ask sua sponte

whether the respondent who is named has the power to order the 

petitioner’s release. If not, the Court may not grant effective 

relief, and thus it should not hear the case unless the petition is 

amended to name a respondent who can grant the desired relief. Id.

The Court will give Petitioner the opportunity to cure this 

defect by amending the petition to name a proper respondent, such as 

the warden of his facility. See, In re Morris, 363 F.3d 891, 893-94 

(9th Cir. 2004). In the interest of judicial economy, Petitioner 

need not file an amended petition. Instead, Petitioner may file a 

motion entitled “Motion to Amend the Petition to Name a Proper 

Respondent,” wherein Petitioner may name the proper respondent in 

Case 1:13-cv-01367-SKO Document 8 Filed 09/23/13 Page 4 of 7
5

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

this action. The action may then proceed on the presently filed 

petition.

III. Petitioner’s State Law Claim

Because the petition was filed after April 24, 1996, the 

effective date of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act 

of 1996 (AEDPA), the AEDPA applies to the petition. Lindh v. 

Murphy, 521 U.S. 320, 327 (1997); Jeffries v. Wood, 114 F.3d 1484, 

1499 (9th Cir. 1997). 

A district court may entertain a petition for a writ of habeas 

corpus by a person in custody pursuant to the judgment of a state 

court only on the ground that the custody is in violation of the 

Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States. 28 U.S.C. 

'' 2254(a), 2241(c)(3); Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362, 375 n.7 

(2000); Wilson v. Corcoran, 562 U.S. B, -, 131 S.Ct. 13, 16 (2010) 

(per curiam). Federal habeas relief is not available to retry a 

state issue that does not rise to the level of a federal 

constitutional violation. Wilson v. Corcoran, 562 U.S. at 16; 

Estelle v. McGuire, 502 U.S. 62, 67-68 (1991). Thus, alleged errors 

in the application of state law are not cognizable in federal habeas 

corpus. Souch v. Schaivo, 289 F.3d 616, 623 (9th Cir. 2002). In a 

habeas proceeding, this Court is bound by the California Supreme 

Court=s interpretation of California law unless the interpretation is 

deemed to be untenable or a veiled attempt to avoid review of 

federal questions. Murtishaw v. Woodford, 255 F.3d 926, 964 (9th 

Cir. 2001).

 Here, Petitioner’s claim is that it is inconsistent with

California’s public policy to base a conviction of making criminal 

threats in violation of Cal. Pen. Code § 422 on a therapist’s 

Case 1:13-cv-01367-SKO Document 8 Filed 09/23/13 Page 5 of 7
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

warning to a third party pursuant to the therapist’s duty to warn of 

a threat of violence in the course of a communication between a 

patient and a therapist. This claim is based solely on an 

interpretation and application of state law, including state public 

policy and state criminal law. Thus, this Court is bound by the 

California Supreme Court’s interpretation or application of 

California law. There are no facts suggesting that the state 

court’s interpretation of California law was untenable or was part 

of an attempt to avoid review of federal questions.

As discussed above, an inconsistency with state public policy 

does not entitle Petitioner to habeas corpus relief in a proceeding 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Accordingly, Petitioner’s allegation 

that his criminal conviction was inconsistent with state public 

policy fails to state facts that point to a real possibility of 

constitutional error. 

Further, the insufficiency of Petitioner’s claim does not 

relate to the absence of any factual allegations, but rather to the 

nature of the claim as one based solely on state law. Accordingly, 

even if Petitioner were granted leave to amend, he could not state a 

tenable federal claim based on a state court’s interpretation or 

application of state law. Accordingly, it will be ordered that 

Petitioner’s state law claim be dismissed without leave to amend.

V. Disposition

Accordingly, it is ORDERED that:

1) Petitioner is GRANTED thirty (30) days after the date of 

service of this order to file a motion to amend the instant petition 

to name a proper respondent. Failure to amend the petition and 

state a proper respondent will result in dismissal of the petition 

Case 1:13-cv-01367-SKO Document 8 Filed 09/23/13 Page 6 of 7
7

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

for failure to name as respondent a person with the power to produce 

the petitioner; and

2) Petitioner’s state law claim is DISMISSED without leave to 

amend.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 23, 2013 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

 

Case 1:13-cv-01367-SKO Document 8 Filed 09/23/13 Page 7 of 7