Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-07147/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-07147-0/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)

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOSEPH A. ALLDREDGE,

Petitioner,

 v.

ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER, 

Respondent. ____________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C 06-7147 MMC (PR)

ORDER DISMISSING PETITION WITH

LEAVE TO AMEND; DENYING

MOTIONS FOR RECONSIDERATION,

TO COMPEL, AND FOR APPOINTMENT

OF COUNSEL; DENYING REQUEST TO

RE-ISSUE; GRANTING APPLICATION

TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS

(Docket Nos. 3, 4 & 5) 

On October 4, 2006, in the Southern District of California, petitioner, a California

prisoner proceeding pro se, filed the above-titled petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant

to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The case was transferred to the Northern District on October 31, 2006. 

On December 26, 2006, petitioner filed a document titled “First Amendment Petition &

Motion for Reconsideration of the Denial of the Writ of Habeas Corpus, Due to Error in It’s

Denial on [] April 29th 2005.” Also before the Court are petitioner’s motion to compel,

request for appointment of counsel and application to proceed in forma pauperis. 

DISCUSSION

This Court may entertain a petition 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);

Case 3:06-cv-07147-MMC Document 6 Filed 01/11/07 Page 1 of 4
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

Rose v. Hodges, 423 U.S. 19, 21 (1975). A district court shall “award the writ or issue an

order directing the respondent to show cause why the writ should not be granted, unless it

appears from the application that the applicant or person detained is not entitled thereto.” 

28 U.S.C. § 2243. Summary dismissal is appropriate only where the allegations in the

petition are vague or conclusory, palpably incredible, or patently frivolous or false. See

Hendricks v. Vasquez, 908 F.2d 490, 491 (9th Cir. 1990) (quoting Blackledge v. Allison, 

431 U.S. 63, 75-76 (1977)).

Missing from both the petition and the December 26, 2006 “amendment” to the

petition, are numerous basic facts regarding petitioner’s conviction and sentence, such as the

crimes of which he was convicted, the date of his sentence, the appeals or other state postconviction relief petitioner has sought, and the issues raised in such appeals and other postconviction filings. Furthermore, the claims are set forth in a conclusory manner without

sufficient factual detail to allow respondent to prepare a meaningful response. Rule 2(c) of

the Rules Governing Habeas Corpus cases requires a petitioner to “specify all the grounds for

relief available to [him]” and to “state the facts supporting each ground.” See id. at 491-92

(holding habeas petitioner must state his claims with sufficient specificity to enable

respondent to prepare meaningful response); see also Allard v. Nelson, 423 F.2d 1216, 1217

(9th Cir. 1970) (holding conclusory allegations in habeas petition fail to state claim and do

not suffice to shift burden to state to answer order to show cause). The petition also raises

various issues, such as petitioner’s medical care and a “love letter” to his son, without

explanation as to how such matters may relate to any specific constitutional violations

pertaining to petitioner’s conviction or sentence. Consequently, before the Court is able to

assess whether petitioner has any cognizable claims, and respondent is able to respond

meaningfully to the petition, petitioner must file an amended petition, using the court’s form

habeas petition, providing all of the information required therein, and clearly and simply

setting forth each alleged constitutional violation with a brief explanation as to how each of

such rights allegedly was violated.

In both the petition and the December 26, 2006 “amendment” to the petition,

Case 3:06-cv-07147-MMC Document 6 Filed 01/11/07 Page 2 of 4
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

In the December 26, 2006 “amendment,” petitioner also appears to seek

“reconsideration” of an April 29, 2005 “denial” by this Court. There has been no such

“denial” in this matter; to whatever extent petitioner seeks reconsideration of an order in one

of his prior cases, he must file a motion for reconsideration in that case and not herein.

Accordingly, said motion will be denied without prejudice to petitioner’s doing so.

3

petitioner requests that the Court “re-issue” an Order to Show Cause from a habeas petition

previously filed by petitioner (No. C 03-2280 MMC (PR)) and dismissed on December 3,

2003 for failure to exhaust. The Court will not “re-issue” an order from a prior case; an

Order to Show Cause will be issued in this matter if petitioner cures the deficiencies in his

petition, as explained above.1

Additionally, petitioner has filed a motion to compel the California Department of

Corrections and Rehabilitation to implement a “12-hour shift.” Such challenges to the

conditions of confinement should be brought in a civil rights complaint, not in a habeas

action. See Badea v. Cox, 931 F.2d 573, 574 (9th Cir. 1991) (providing civil rights action is

proper method of challenging conditions of confinement). Lastly, the Court addresses

petitioner’s request for appointment of counsel, which is contained in his initial filing. The

interests of justice do not require appointment of counsel in the instant case at this time. 

See Knaubert v. Goldsmith, 791 F.2d 722, 728 (9th Cir. 1986) (providing the Sixth

Amendment’s right to counsel does not apply in habeas actions). Should the circumstances

change materially at a later stage of the litigation, the Court will reconsider this decision sua

sponte. 

CONCLUSION

For the reasons stated above, this action is hereby DISMISSED, with leave to file an

amended petition within thirty (30) days of the date this order is filed. Petitioner's amended

petition shall be filed on the court's form for habeas petitions, and shall cure the deficiencies

noted above. The amended petition must include the caption and civil case number used in

this order (No. C 06-7147 MMC (PR)) and the words AMENDED PETITION on the first

page. Petitioner must include in the amended petition all the claims he wishes to present, and

he may not include any unexhausted claims or incorporate material from prior petitions by

Case 3:06-cv-07147-MMC Document 6 Filed 01/11/07 Page 3 of 4
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

4

reference. Failure to file an amended petition in conformity with this order will result in

the dismissal of this action without prejudice.

It is petitioner's responsibility to prosecute this case. Petitioner must keep the Court

informed of any change of address and must comply with the Court’s orders in a timely fashion. 

Failure to do so may result in the dismissal of this action for failure to prosecute pursuant to Federal

Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b).

Petitioner’s motions for reconsideration and to compel are DENIED. Petitioner’s request for

appointment of counsel is DENIED.

 In light of petitioner’s lack of funds, petitioner’s application for leave to proceed in

forma pauperis is GRANTED.

This order terminates Docket Nos. 3, 4 and 5.

 IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: January 11, 2007 _________________________

MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge

Case 3:06-cv-07147-MMC Document 6 Filed 01/11/07 Page 4 of 4