Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-06239/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-06239-0/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)

---

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JULIUS LEE TURNER, 

Petitioner,

v.

 PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF

CALIFORNIA,

Respondent. /

No. C 06-6239 JSW (PR)

ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH

LEAVE TO AMEND AND

INSTRUCTIONS TO THE CLERK

(Docket no. 2)

Petitioner, currently incarcerated at Calpatria State Prison located in Calpatria,

California, filed this action seeking a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 

However, it is unclear from the petition whether Petitioner is seeking information on an

earlier federal habeas petition, whose number he has identified as 3:92-cv-00541 BAC, or

whether he currently seeks habeas relief. Petitioner’s motion to proceed in forma

pauperis is GRANTED (docket no. 2). The petition is now before the court for review

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §2243 and Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. 

Because the Court cannot discern the nature of the relief requested, the petition is

dismissed with leave to amend within thirty days. 

DISCUSSION

A. Standard of Review

This 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

Case 3:06-cv-06239-JSW Document 3 Filed 02/20/07 Page 1 of 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

2

U.S.C. § 2254(a); 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)). 

B. Petitioner’s Claims

The petition identifies two separate claims. However, the petition has a critical

defect: it does not clearly state the nature of the relief sought. The petition in the instant

case was filed with a case number for an earlier habeas case filed by Petitioner that was

closed approximately thirteen years ago. That case, docket no. 3:92-cv-00541 BAC was

denied on the merits in an order dated July 5, 1994. In the body of the petition, Petitioner

identifies that he is no longer in custody on the case filed under that docket number. 

However, in the claims section of the petition form, Petitioner lists several claims, one of

which states “[t]he courts did not notify me on the results of my appeal. . .I parole [sic] in

June of 1994 and still did not receive a response.” Claim two also states a claim,

discussing the use of a prior from another state to enhance Petitioner’s sentence. 

It is unclear from the petition whether Petitioner is merely seeking information,

specifically, whether his 1992 petition was ever adjudicated by this Court on the merits

and whether he wishes to receive a copy of that dismissal. In the alternative, this Court is

unable to discern whether Petitioner currently seeks habeas relief with regard to this or

another conviction. Therefore, Petitioner’s petition must be dismissed for failure to state

a cognizable claim for federal habeas relief. He will be given leave to amend to cure this

defect.

CONCLUSION 

For the foregoing reasons and for good cause shown, this action is dismissed with

leave to file an amended petition within thirty days of the date of this order. If Petitioner

Case 3:06-cv-06239-JSW Document 3 Filed 02/20/07 Page 2 of 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

3

seeks habeas relief, the amended petition must contain the caption and civil case number

used in this order, Case No. C-06-6239 JSW (PR) and the words AMENDED PETITION

on the first page. Failure to file an amended petition by the deadline will result in

dismissal of this action.

In the alternative, if Petitioner is instead seeking copies of his prior case or

information on that matter, Petitioner must complete the Court’s request for copies form

and return it to the Clerk’s office with payment. In that event, Petitioner need not file an

amended petition, and may instead obtain information or copies from the Clerk’s office.

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

informed of any change of address by filing a separate paper with the clerk headed

“Notice of Change of Address.” He must comply with any orders of the Court within the

time allowed, or ask for an extension of that time. 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). See Martinez v. Johnson, 104 F.3d 769, 772 (5th Cir. 1997) (Rule 41(b)

applicable in habeas cases). 

The Clerk is directed to send Petitioner a copy of this Court’s form for ordering

copies and a copy of the docket sheet in Case No. 3:92-cv-00541 BAC.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: February 20, 2007

 

JEFFREY S. WHITE

United States District Judge

Case 3:06-cv-06239-JSW Document 3 Filed 02/20/07 Page 3 of 3