Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_20-cv-00199/USCOURTS-caed-2_20-cv-00199-2/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 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

GARRISON THOMAS FICKENWORTH, 

Petitioner, 

v. 

CHRISTIAN PFIEFFER, WARDEN, 

Respondent. 

No. 2:20-cv-0199 AC P 

ORDER AND FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS 

 Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, seeks habeas relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 

2254 and has requested leave to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. See 

ECF Nos. 1, 5, 7. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 

U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. For the reasons stated below, the undersigned 

recommends that this action be summarily dismissed pursuant to Rule 4 of the Habeas Rules 

Governing Section 2254 Cases. 

I. IN FORMA PAUPERIS APPLICATION 

 Petitioner has submitted a declaration that makes the showing required by 28 U.S.C. § 

1915(a). See ECF No. 7. Accordingly, the request to proceed in forma pauperis will be granted. 

II. RELEVANT PROCEDURAL HISTORY 

 On January 23, 2020, petitioner filed a federal habeas petition, which was subsequently 

transferred to this division. See ECF Nos. 1, 2. On February 3, 2020, petitioner filed an 

Case 2:20-cv-00199-WBS-AC Document 10 Filed 04/06/20 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 

2 

unsolicited first amended petition (“FAP”). See ECF No. 5. The court here considers the FAP. 

III. STANDARD OF REVIEW 

 The court is required to screen all actions brought by prisoners who seek any form of 

relief, including habeas relief, from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a 

governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). Rule 4 of the Habeas Rules Governing Section 2254 

Cases requires the court to summarily dismiss a habeas petition “[i]f it plainly appears from the 

petition and any attached exhibits that the petitioner is not entitled to relief in the district court.” 

A person in custody pursuant to the judgment of a state court can obtain a federal writ of habeas 

corpus “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). The court must also dismiss a habeas petition or 

portion thereof if the prisoner raises claims that are legally “frivolous or malicious” or that fail to 

state a basis on which habeas relief may be granted. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i)-(ii). 

 Rule 2(c) of the Rules Governing § 2254 Cases requires every habeas petition to (1) 

specify all the grounds for relief available to the petitioner; (2) state the facts supporting each 

ground, and (3) state the relief requested. Pro se pleadings are held to a less stringent standard 

than those drafted by lawyers. See Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972). However, a 

petitioner must give fair notice of his claims by stating the factual and legal elements of each 

claim in a short, plain, and succinct manner. See Mayle v. Felix, 545 U.S. 644, 648 (2005) (“In 

ordinary civil proceedings . . . Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires only 'a 

short and plain statement . . . . Rule 2(c) of the Rules Governing Habeas Corpus Cases requires 

a more detailed statement.”) Allegations in a petition that are vague, conclusory, or palpably 

incredible, and that are unsupported by a statement of specific facts, are insufficient to warrant 

relief and are subject to summary dismissal. See, e.g., Jones v. Gomez, 66 F.3d 199, 204-205 

(9th Cir.1995); James v. Borg, 24 F.3d 20, 26 (9th Cir.1994). 

IV. PETITIONER’S CLAIM 

 The FAP does not present any challenge to petitioner’s conviction or his sentence. See 

generally ECF No. 5 at 4-6. Instead, petitioner states that he is “presenting a cross claim under 

House Joint Resolution 192 and Rule 13.” Id. at 4. In the section of the petition calling for a 

Case 2:20-cv-00199-WBS-AC Document 10 Filed 04/06/20 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 

3 

statement of facts in support of the claim, petitioner states: 

I am a secured party / creditor recorded under California State Seal 

with the Secretary of State under UCC I Financial Statement # 1260-

006-6213-9. And exempt from levy in accordance with public policy 

and Uniform Commercial Code. (Exhibit A: is a cross claim under 

public policy. UCC and truth and lending) (Exhibit B: is a order for 

release by the secured party) (Exhibit C: is the acceptance for value 

for case #15F04462 

ECF No. 5 at 4. 

V. DISCUSSION 

 The First Amended Petition states that petitioner is serving an eleven-year sentence for 

driving or taking a vehicle without an owner’s consent and for receiving or buying stolen 

property. See ECF No. 5 at 1. The claim that petitioner raises contests neither his convictions for 

these crimes nor his sentence, and is therefore not cognizable under the federal habeas statute. 

See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a). Moreover, the claim is unintelligible. 

 Because the petition states no facts that could support habeas relief, it must be dismissed. 

The allegations of the FAP are virtually identical to those in the original petition. Compare ECF 

No. 1 at 1-6, with ECF No. 5 at 1-6. The undersigned concludes that further amendment would 

be futile, because nothing in either petition indicates the existence of any cognizable claim. For 

these reasons, it will be recommended that this action be summarily dismissed pursuant to Rule 4 

of the Habeas Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. 

 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 

1. Petitioner’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 7) is GRANTED, and 

2. The Clerk of Court shall: 

 a. Randomly assign a District Court Judge to this action, and 

 b. Serve a copy of the petition filed in this case together with a copy of these findings 

and recommendations on the Attorney General of the State of California. 

 IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that: 

1. Petitioner's application for a writ of habeas corpus be SUMMARILY DISMISSED for 

failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, and 

//// 

Case 2:20-cv-00199-WBS-AC Document 10 Filed 04/06/20 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 

4 

2. The court DECLINE to issue the certificate of appealability referenced in 28 U.S.C. § 

2253. 

 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 

assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within fourteen days 

after being served with these findings and recommendations, petitioner may file written 

objections with the court. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate 

Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Failure to file objections within the specified time 

may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Turner v. Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 

(9th Cir. 1998); Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). In his objections, petitioner may 

address whether a certificate of appealability should issue in the event he files an appeal of the 

judgment in this case. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). 

DATED: April 6, 2020 

Case 2:20-cv-00199-WBS-AC Document 10 Filed 04/06/20 Page 4 of 4