Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-01685/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-01685-0/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RAYMOND THOMAS GARCIA, JR.,

Petitioner,

v.

SUPERIOR COURT OF KERN 

COUNTY, et al.,

Respondents.

Case No. 1:15-cv-01685 MJS (HC)

ORDER DISMISSING PETITION FOR WRIT 

OF HABEAS CORPUS FOR FAILING TO 

STATE COGNIZABLE CLAIM

AMENDED PETITION DUE WITHIN THIRTY 

(30) DAYS

Petitioner appears to be a former state prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition 

for writ of habeas corpus under the authority of 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 

Petitioner filed the instant petition for writ of habeas corpus on November 5, 2015. 

(Pet., ECF No. 1.) Based on Petitioner’s return address at the time of filing, Petitioner 

was housed at California State Prison Centinela, in Imperial County, California. 

However, it appears that Petitioner is no longer in custody and is currently residing in 

Riverside County, California.

Petitioner describes and appears to challenge several different convictions from 

Imperial and Riverside Counties. Without clarification as to what conviction, if any,

Case 1:15-cv-01685-MJS Document 9 Filed 05/26/16 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

Petitioner is challenging, the Court is unable to discern if he has a cognizable federal 

habeas petition. In addition, without further specificity regarding the legal challenges, the 

Court is not able to determine which federal judicial district is the proper Court to present 

his challenges.1 

I. DISCUSSION

A. Procedural Grounds for Summary Dismissal

Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases provides in pertinent part:

If it plainly appears from the petition and any attached exhibits that 

the petitioner is not entitled to relief in the district court, the judge must 

dismiss the petition and direct the clerk to notify the petitioner.

The Advisory Committee Notes to Rule 8 indicate that the court may dismiss a 

petition for writ of habeas corpus, either on its own motion under Rule 4, pursuant to the 

respondent’s motion to dismiss, or after an answer to the petition has been filed. A 

petition for habeas corpus should not be dismissed without leave to amend unless it 

appears that no tenable claim for relief can be pleaded were such leave granted. Jarvis 

v. Nelson, 440 F.2d 13, 14 (9th Cir. 1971).

B. Petitioner's Claims

The Court finds Petitioner’s lengthy explanation of his claims to be largely

unintelligible. He alludes to several different convictions and different grounds for relief, 

but provides little factual support for them. (See generally, Pet.) The Petition does not 

reveal what conviction or convictions Petitioner challenges or his theory of relief from 

them.

Petitioner's statements are so incomprehensible as to deny Respondent the 

opportunity to respond to them. The notice pleading standard applicable in ordinary civil 

proceedings does not apply in habeas corpus cases. Habeas Rules 2(c), 4, and 5(b) 

require a more detailed statement of all grounds for relief and the facts supporting each 

 

1

It is usually proper to transfer a federal habeas petition to the district in which Petitioner was 

convicted. As Petitioner challenges convictions from the Central District of California (Riverside County) 

and the Southern District of California (Imperial County), it is unclear where transfer would be appropriate. 

Case 1:15-cv-01685-MJS Document 9 Filed 05/26/16 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

ground; the petition is expected to state facts that point to a real possibility of 

constitutional error and show the relationship of the facts to the claim. Habeas Rule 4, 

Advisory Committee Notes, 1976 Adoption; Mayle v. Felix, 545 U.S. 644, 655 (2005); 

O'Bremski v. Maass, 915 F.2d 418, 420 (9th Cir. 1990) (quoting Blackledge v. Allison, 

431 U.S. 63, 75 n.7 (1977)). This is because the purpose of the rules is to assist the 

district court in determining whether the respondent should be ordered to show cause 

why the writ should not be granted and to permit the filing of an answer that satisfies the 

requirement that it address the allegations in the petition. Mayle, 545 U.S. at 655. 

Allegations in a petition that are vague, conclusional, or palpably incredible, and that are 

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

subject to summary dismissal. Jones v. Gomez, 66 F.3d 199, 204-05 (9th Cir. 1995); 

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

Petitioner does not specify the conviction he is challenging or what federal law he 

claims was violated by Respondent. Without more, Respondent cannot reasonably be 

expected to respond to Petitioner's claims and the Court is incapable of determining 

whether and where jurisdiction may exist.

A petition for habeas corpus should not be dismissed without leave to amend 

unless it appears that no tenable claim for relief can be pleaded were such leave 

granted. Jarvis v. Nelson, 440 F.2d 13, 14 (9th Cir. 1971). Accordingly, the Court will 

provide Petitioner another opportunity to state his claims in an amended petition. 

The Court will provide Petitioner a blank petition for writ of habeas corpus. Using 

the petition form provided, Petitioner must reference the instant case number and 

designate his petition as an "Amended Petition." He must present each and every of his 

challenges and claims in sufficient detail as to provide Respondent the ability to 

comprehend and respond with reasonable effort. 

II. ORDER

 Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Petitioner is GRANTED thirty (30) days from the date of service of this Order to 

Case 1:15-cv-01685-MJS Document 9 Filed 05/26/16 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

SUBMIT an AMENDED PETITION. The amended petition should be clearly and 

boldly titled “AMENDED PETITION,” contain the appropriate case number, and be 

an original signed under penalty of perjury; 

2. The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to send Petitioner a blank form petition for 

Petitioner's filing pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254; and,

3. Petitioner is forewarned that her failure to comply with this order may result in a 

Recommendation that the petition be dismissed pursuant to Local Rule 110.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 25, 2016 /s/Michael J. Seng 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:15-cv-01685-MJS Document 9 Filed 05/26/16 Page 4 of 4