Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_07-cv-01816/USCOURTS-casd-3_07-cv-01816-1/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

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

K:\COMMON\EVERYONE\_EFILE-PROSE\WQH\07cv1816 dismiss FAP.wpd, 11157 -1- 07cv0000

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JAMES LYNN HINES, Civil No. 07cv1816 WQH (RBB)

Petitioner,

ORDER DISMISSING FIRST

AMENDED PETITION WITHOUT

PREJUDICE

v.

JANET NAPOLITANO, Warden,

Respondent.

On September 14, 2007, Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, submitted a

Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, together with an application

to proceed in forma pauperis. On September 26, 2007, this Court granted Petitioner’s

application to proceed in forma pauperis, and dismissed the petition with leave to amend for

Petitioner’s failure to clearly and succinctly state his federal claims. [Doc. No. 3.] On October

26, 2007, Petitioner filed a First Amended Petition. [Doc. No. 4.]

FAILURE TO STATE GROUNDS FOR RELIEF IN PETITION

Rule 2(c) of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases states that the petition “shall set

forth in summary form the facts supporting each of the grounds . . . specified [in the petition].”

Rule 2(c), 28 U.S.C. foll. § 2254. See also Boehme v. Maxwell, 423 F.2d 1056, 1058 (9th Cir.

1970) (trial court’s dismissal of federal habeas proceeding affirmed where petitioner made

conclusory allegations instead of factual allegations showing that he was entitled to relief).

Here, Petitioner has violated Rule 2(c). Although Petitioner does not fail to state generalized

constitutional grounds for relief, he does fail to provide specific, intelligible factual allegations

Case 3:07-cv-01816-WQH-RBB Document 6 Filed 11/15/07 Page 1 of 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

K:\COMMON\EVERYONE\_EFILE-PROSE\WQH\07cv1816 dismiss FAP.wpd, 11157 -2- 07cv0000

in support of such grounds.

While courts should liberally interpret pro se pleadings with leniency and understanding,

this should not place on the reviewing court the entire onus of ferreting out grounds for relief.

Cf. Burkey v. Deeds, 824 F. Supp. 190, 193 (D. Nev. 1993) (finding that courts do not have

entire onus of creating federal claim for petitioner). This Court would have to engage in a

tenuous analysis in order to attempt to identify and make sense of the Petition. In order to satisfy

Rule 2(c), Petitioner must point to a “real possibility of constitutional error.” Cf. Blackledge v.

Allison, 431 U.S. 63, 75 n.7 (1977) (internal quotation marks omitted). Facts must be stated, in

the petition, with sufficient detail to enable the Court to determine, from the face of the petition,

whether further habeas corpus review is warranted. Adams v. Armontrout, 897 F.2d 332, 334

(8th Cir. 1990). Moreover, the allegations should be sufficiently specific to permit the

respondent to assert appropriate objections and defenses. Harris v. Allen, 739 F. Supp. 564, 565

(W.D. Okla. 1989). Here, the lack of coherent grounds for relief in the Petition prevents the

Respondent from being able to assert appropriate objections and defenses.

Due to Petitioner’s unsatisfactory showing, the Court dismisses the action without

prejudice. Should Petitioner decide to file another petition, he is advised to clearly and

succinctly state all grounds for relief using the Second Amended Petition form sent to Petitioner

with this Order.

FAILURE TO ALLEGE EXHAUSTION OF STATE JUDICIAL REMEDIES

Further, habeas petitioners who wish to challenge either their state court conviction or

the length of their confinement in state prison, must first exhaust state judicial remedies. 28

U.S.C. § 2254(b), (c); Granberry v. Greer, 481 U.S. 129, 133-34 (1987). To exhaust state

judicial remedies, a California state prisoner must present the California Supreme Court with a

fair opportunity to rule on the merits of every issue raised in his or her federal habeas petition.

28 U.S.C. § 2254(b), (c); Granberry, 481 U.S. at 133-34. Moreover, to properly exhaust state

court remedies a petitioner must allege, in state court, how one or more of his or her federal

rights have been violated. The Supreme Court in Duncan v. Henry, 513 U.S. 364 (1995)

reasoned: “If state courts are to be given the opportunity to correct alleged violations of

prisoners’ federal rights, they must surely be alerted to the fact that the prisoners are asserting

Case 3:07-cv-01816-WQH-RBB Document 6 Filed 11/15/07 Page 2 of 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

K:\COMMON\EVERYONE\_EFILE-PROSE\WQH\07cv1816 dismiss FAP.wpd, 11157 -3- 07cv0000

claims under the United States Constitution.” Id. at 365-66 (emphasis added). For example,

“[i]f a habeas petitioner wishes to claim that an evidentiary ruling at a state court trial denied him

[or her] the due process of law guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment, he [or she] must say

so, not only in federal court, but in state court.” Id. at 366 (emphasis added).

Nowhere in the Petition does Petitioner allege that he raised his claims in the California

Supreme Court. In fact, he specifically indicates he did not seek review in the California

Supreme Court. (See Pet. at 6 - 9.) If Petitioner has raised his claims in the California Supreme

Court he must so specify. “The burden of proving that a claim has been exhausted lies with the

petitioner.” Matthews v. Evatt, 105 F.3d 907, 911 (4th Cir. 1997); see Breard v. Pruett, 134 F.3d

615, 619 (4th Cir. 1998); Lambert v. Blackwell, 134 F.3d 506, 513 (3d Cir. 1997); Oyler v.

Allenbrand, 23 F.3d 292, 300 (10th Cir. 1994); Rust v. Zent, 17 F.3d 155, 160 (6th Cir. 1994).

Further, the Court cautions Petitioner that under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death

Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA) a one-year period of limitation shall apply to a petition for a writ

of habeas corpus by a person in custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court. The

limitation period shall run from the latest of:

(A) the date on which the judgment became final by the

conclusion of direct review or the expiration of the time for seeking

such review;

(B) the date on which the impediment to filing an application

created by State action in violation of the Constitution or laws of the

United States is removed, if the applicant was prevented from filing

by such State action;

(C) the date on which the constitutional right asserted was

initially recognized by the Supreme Court, if the right has been

newly recognized by the Supreme Court and made retroactively

applicable to cases on collateral review; or

(D) the date on which the factual predicate of the claim or

claims presented could have been discovered through the exercise

of due diligence.

28 U.S.C.A. § 2244(d)(1)(A)-(D) (West Supp. 2002).

The statute of limitations does not run while a properly filed state habeas corpus petition

is pending. 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(2); see Nino v. Galaza, 183 F.3d 1003, 1006 (9th Cir. 1999).

But see Artuz v. Bennett, 531 U.S. 4, 8 (2000) (holding that “an application is ‘properly filed’

when its delivery and acceptance [by the appropriate court officer for placement into the record]

Case 3:07-cv-01816-WQH-RBB Document 6 Filed 11/15/07 Page 3 of 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

K:\COMMON\EVERYONE\_EFILE-PROSE\WQH\07cv1816 dismiss FAP.wpd, 11157 -4- 07cv0000

are in compliance with the applicable laws and rules governing filings.”). However, absent some

other basis for tolling, the statute of limitations does run while a federal habeas petition is

pending. Duncan v. Walker, 533 U.S. 167, 181-82 (2001).

Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases provides for summary dismissal of a

habeas petition “[i]f it plainly appears from the face of the petition and any exhibits annexed to

it that the petitioner is not entitled to relief in the district court . . .” Rule 4, 28 U.S.C. foll.

§ 2254. Here, it appears plain from the Petition that Petitioner is not presently entitled to federal

habeas relief because he has not alleged exhaustion of state court remedies.

CONCLUSION 

Based on the foregoing, the Court DISMISSES the petition for (1) failure to state

cognizable claims for relief and (2) failure to allege exhaustion of state judicial remedies. In

order to have this case reopened, Petitioner must submit a First Amended Petition that cures the

deficiencies outlined above no later than January 7, 2008. For Petitioner’s convenience, the

Clerk of Court shall attach a blank First Amended Petition for to this Order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: November 15, 2007

WILLIAM Q. HAYES

United States District Judge

Case 3:07-cv-01816-WQH-RBB Document 6 Filed 11/15/07 Page 4 of 4