Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_06-cv-06086/USCOURTS-cand-4_06-cv-06086-1/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)

---

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MONTEZ SALAMASINA TUIA:

OTTLEY,

Petitioner,

 vs.

SHEILA CLARK, Warden,

Respondent. /

No. C 06-6086 PJH (PR)

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

This case was opened when petitioner, a federal prisoner, filed a document headed

“Complaint, Summons to Issue in the Nature of a § 16-1901 et seq. Writ of Habeas Corpus

per District of Columbia Code.” She was convicted in the District of Hawaii and is housed

in this district.

Although the cited section of the District of Columbia Code applies only to petitions

for habeas corpus filed by “persons within the district,” D.C. Code § 16-1901 (2007), and

petitioner is housed here, the court concluded in the initial review order that petitioner was

attempting to file a habeas case, leaving aside the question of the proper statutory basis for

it. The negligence and damages claims were dismissed and the habeas claims were

dismissed with leave to amend. Petitioner was given thirty days to file an amended petition

containing only the habeas claims and which would “clearly set out how, as to each ground,

petitioner contends her rights were violated.” She was warned that “her conviction, as

opposed to the execution of her sentence, can be attacked only by way of a motion under

28 U.S.C. § 2255 filed in the district of conviction.” 

///

Case 4:06-cv-06086-PJH Document 10 Filed 07/26/07 Page 1 of 2
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

Instead of amending, petitioner filed what she called “Plaintiff’s Verified Notice of

Objection in Response to Court’s Erroneous Dismissal and Dismissal with Leave to Amend

Filed April 9, 2007, Exhibit ‘A’.” The motion was be treated as a request for leave to file a

motion to reconsider under Civil Local Rule 7-9(a). Because the basis for the “Objection”

was petitioner’s belief that petitions for habeas corpus had been abolished, and because

that presupposition was not true, leave to file a motion to reconsider was denied. Petitioner

also was given additional time to amend, which she now has done. 

The amendment purports to be “In Admiralty.” As no basis for this appears, it will be

treated as an amended habeas petition. 

An application for a federal writ of habeas corpus filed by a prisoner who is in state

custody pursuant to a judgment of a state court must “specify all the grounds for relief

which are available to the petitioner ... and shall set forth in summary form the facts

supporting each of the grounds thus specified.” Rule 2(c) of the Rules Governing § 2254

Cases, 28 U.S.C. foll. § 2254. “‘[N]otice’ pleading is not sufficient, for the petition is

expected to state facts that point to a ‘real possibility of constitutional error.’” Rule 4

Advisory Committee Notes (quoting Aubut v. Maine, 431 F.2d 688, 689 (1st Cir. 1970). 

“Habeas petitions which appear on their face to be legally insufficient are subject to

summary dismissal.” Calderon v. United States Dist. Court (Nicolaus), 98 F.3d 1102, 1108

(9th Cir. 1996) (Schroeder, J., concurring). 

Because the petition fails to provide any coherent basis for habeas relief, it is legally

insufficient on its face and will be summarily dismissed. To whatever extent petitioner may

intend to present civil rights claims, such claims were dismissed without leave to amend in

the initial review order and cannot now be added to this habeas case. 

CONCLUSION

This case is DISMISSED. The clerk shall close the file.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: 7/26/07 

 PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON

United States District Judge 

G:\PRO-SE\PJH\HC.06\OTTLEY086.DISM.wpd

Case 4:06-cv-06086-PJH Document 10 Filed 07/26/07 Page 2 of 2