Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_16-cv-00574/USCOURTS-caed-1_16-cv-00574-0/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

BRANDON ALEXANDER FAVOR,

Petitioner,

v.

DANIEL PARAMA, Warden,

Respondent.

Case No. 1:16-cv-00574 MJS (HC)

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THE

PETITION SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED 

FOR FAILURE TO STATE A COGNIZABLE

CLAIM 

[Doc. 1]

Petitioner is a 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 April 25, 2016. 

(Pet., ECF No. 1.), Petitioner was convicted of murder, two counts of attempted murder, 

and two counts of second degree robbery on July 30, 2008 in Los Angeles County. (Id.

at 1.) Petitioner asserts a claim of insufficient evidence. However, it is unclear if his claim 

and his petition are directed to his underlying conviction in state court or to prison 

disciplinary proceedings that occurred while Petitioner was incarcerated. (Id. at 4.) While 

Petitioner asserts that he is entitled to relief and seeks release from prison (Id. at 6.), the 

Case 1:16-cv-00574-MJS Document 4 Filed 05/03/16 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

Court is unable to determine if his claims are proper until the Court can determine which 

action Petitioner is challenging.

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. Failure to State Cognizable Claim

A federal court may only grant a petition for writ of habeas corpus if the petitioner 

can show that "he is in custody in violation of the Constitution . . . ." 28 U.S.C. § 

2254(a). A habeas corpus petition is the correct method for a prisoner to challenge the 

“legality or duration” of his confinement. Badea v. Cox, 931 F.2d 573, 574 (9th Cir. 

1991), quoting, Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 485 (1973); Advisory Committee 

Notes to Rule 1 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. 

In contrast, a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 is the proper method 

for a prisoner to challenge the conditions of that confinement. McCarthy v. Bronson, 500 

U.S. 136, 141-42 (1991); Preiser, 411 U.S. at 499; Badea, 931 F.2d at 574; Advisory 

Committee Notes to Rule 1 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. 

Petitioner seeks release from confinement. Therefore, his claims implicate the fact 

or duration of his confinement, and are properly presented by way of a habeas corpus 

petition. However, a district court may entertain a petition for a writ of habeas corpus by 

a state prisoner only on the ground that the custody is in violation of the Constitution, 

Case 1:16-cv-00574-MJS Document 4 Filed 05/03/16 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

laws, or treaties of the United States. 28 U.S.C. §§ 2254(a), 2241(c)(3); Williams v. 

Taylor, 529 U.S. 362, 375 n.7, 120 S. Ct. 1495, 146 L. Ed. 2d 389 (2000); Wilson v. 

Corcoran, 131 S. Ct. 13, 16, 178 L. Ed. 2d 276 (2010).

Federal habeas relief is not available to retry a state issue that does not rise to the 

level of a federal constitutional violation. Wilson v. Corcoran, 131 S.Ct. at 16 (2010); 

Estelle v. McGuire, 502 U.S. 62, 67-68, 112 S. Ct. 475, 116 L. Ed. 2d 385 (1991). 

Alleged errors in the application of state law are not cognizable in federal habeas 

corpus. Souch v. Schaivo, 289 F.3d 616, 623 (9th Cir. 2002) (an ex post facto claim 

challenging state court's discretionary decision concerning application of state 

sentencing law presented only state law issues and was not cognizable in a proceeding 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254); Langford v. Day, 110 F.3d 1380, 1389 (9th Cir. 1996). 

The Court accepts a state court's interpretation of state law. Langford, 110 F.3d at 1389.

In a habeas corpus proceeding, this Court is bound by the California Supreme Court's 

interpretation of California law unless the interpretation is deemed untenable or a veiled 

attempt to avoid review of federal questions. Murtishaw v. Woodford, 255 F.3d 926, 964 

(9th Cir. 2001).

In this case, Petitioner presents a claim that there was insufficient evidence and 

that he is entitled to release. However, he has presented little detail regarding the factual 

basis of the claim, and further complicates the matter by attaching a significant number 

of documents to the petition that appear to relate to different matters. For example, some 

documents relate to disciplinary proceedings that occurred since Petitioner has been in 

custod, and other records relate to his underlying conviction. Finally, Petitioner has not 

presented any federal legal authority for the insufficient evidence claim. 

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). As it is possible that a federal 

claim could be stated, Petitioner is provided the opportunity to file an amended petition 

to attempt to state a cognizable claim.

Case 1:16-cv-00574-MJS Document 4 Filed 05/03/16 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

II. ORDER

Petitioner is ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE why the petition should not be 

dismissed for Petitioner's failure to state cognizable federal claims. Petitioner is 

ORDERED to file an amended petition for writ of habeas corpus within thirty (30) days of 

the date of service of this order. Petitioner, in the amended petition, should clearly 

indicate whether he is challenging is conviction or a disciplinary proceeding, and provide 

significant factual and legal support for the claim. 

Petitioner is forewarned that failure to follow this order will result in dismissal of 

the petition pursuant to Local Rule 110.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 2, 2016 /s/Michael J. Seng 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:16-cv-00574-MJS Document 4 Filed 05/03/16 Page 4 of 4