Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_08-cv-00241/USCOURTS-cand-3_08-cv-00241-0/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MANUEL MANLICLIC NAVARRO,

Petitioner,

 vs.

BEN CURRY, Warden,

Respondent. /

No. C 08-0241 WHA (PR) 

ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH

LEAVE TO AMEND

Petitioner, a California prisoner currently incarcerated at the Correctional Training

Facility, has filed a pro se petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. He

has paid the filing fee. 

Venue is proper in this district because the conviction was obtained in Alameda County,

which is in this district. See 28 U.S.C. § 2241(d). 

DISCUSSION

A. STANDARD OF REVIEW

A district court may entertain a petition for 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); Rose

v. Hodges, 423 U.S. 19, 21 (1975). Habeas corpus petitions must meet heightened pleading

requirements. McFarland v. Scott, 512 U.S. 849, 856 (1994). 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

Case 3:08-cv-00241-WHA Document 2 Filed 01/22/08 Page 1 of 3
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

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). 

B. LEGAL CLAIMS

In 2003 an Alameda County jury convicted petitioner of arson of an inhabited dwelling. 

He was sentenced to ten years in prison. The conviction was affirmed on appeal by the Court

of Appeal of California and the Supreme Court of California denied review. 

The petition in this consists of pages one through three of the court’s form, plus twentynine pages of a typed document. The typed document is headed “California Supreme Court”

and is captioned both “Points and Authorities in Support of Motion to Dismiss for Denial of

Due Process and I.A.C. Ineffective Assistan[ce] of Counsel” and “Petition for Writ of Habeas

Corpus.” The conflict between these two parts of the caption is not explained. 

The absence of the pages of the court form subsequent to page three means that there are

no allegations regarding exhaustion and, because the claims in the non-form portion of the

petition are unclear, no clear statement of the issues which petitioner wishes to raise. The

petition will be dismissed with leave to file an amended petition on the court’s form.

CONCLUSION 

1. The petition is DISMISSED with leave to amend within thirty days from the date this

order is entered. The amendment must (1) be on the court’s form; and (2) include the caption

and civil case number used in this order and the words AMENDED PETITION on the first

page. Failure to amend within the designated time will result in the dismissal of the case. 

2. The clerk shall send petitioner two sets of the court’s form packet for prisoner section

2254 petitions. Because petitioner has paid the filing fee he need not return the application for

leave to proceed in forma pauperis.

Case 3:08-cv-00241-WHA Document 2 Filed 01/22/08 Page 2 of 3
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

3

3. 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).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 22 , 2008. 

WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

G:\PRO-SE\WHA\HC.08\NAVARRO0241.DWL.wpd 

Case 3:08-cv-00241-WHA Document 2 Filed 01/22/08 Page 3 of 3