Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01617/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01617-1/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 On this same date, Petitioner submitted an application to proceed in forma pauperis. However, because 1

Petitioner paid the filing fee for this action, the application is unnecessary and shall be DISREGARDED.

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LEROY TATE, JR.,

Petitioner,

v.

SCOTT KERANA, et.al.,

Respondents.

 /

CV F 05-1617 REC DLB HC

ORDER DIRECTING PETITIONER TO

AMEND PETITION

[Doc. 1]

Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas corpus

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 

Petitioner filed the instant petition for writ of habeas corpus on December 15, 2005 in the

United States District Court for the Eastern District of California, Sacramento Division, and paid

the $5.00 filing fee. On December 20, 2005, the action was transferred to this Court. 1

A. Incomplete Petition

A preliminary review of the petition reveals that Petitioner has not completed the petition

and listed each ground for relief along with a brief statement of facts supporting each ground. 

Petitioner instead makes reference to several pages submitted in separate form in support of his

petition. 

Rule 2 of the "Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases" provide that the petition: 

Case 1:05-cv-01617-REC-DLB Document 10 Filed 02/07/06 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

" . . . shall specify all the grounds for relief which are available to the petitioner and

of which he has or by the exercise of reasonable diligence should have knowledge

and Shall set forth in summary form the facts supporting each of the grounds thus

specified." 

Rule 2(c), 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Additionally, the Advisory Committee Note to these rules explains

that: " '(N)otice' pleading is not sufficient, for the petition is expected to state facts that point to a

'real possibility of constitutional error.' " 28 U.S.C. § 2254, p. 1111; Quoted approvingly in

Blackledge v. Allison, 431 U.S. 63, 75 n.7, 97 S.Ct. 1621 (1977). Petitioner did not adequately

fill out the portion of the petition setting forth the grounds for relief and providing a brief

statement of the facts in support thereof. Instead, petitioner makes reference to the documents he

submitted in support of his petition. A petitioner may submit attachments or exhibits to the

petition, however, the form itself must be completed in its entirety. Petitioner must submit an

amended petition filling out the portion of the petition which sets forth a brief statement of the

ground for relief and supporting facts thereto. The court stresses the impropriety of filing a blank

petition along with attachments. This type of filing requires the court to expend a significant

amount of time attempting to determine what Petitioner’s claims are and whether he provides

sufficient facts to support them. Such information can be provided in a brief manner by

completing the form petition. Moreover, it is not the duty of federal courts to try to determine

what might constitute a claim for relief or which claims petitioner might intend to bring before the

court. Such duty is upon the individual who asserts a denial of his constitutional rights. The court

will not read through several pages in order to determine what claims Petitioner might wish to

bring. The form petition is provided to Petitioner to make the listing of claims easy and enable

the court to make a determination that the claim and supporting facts allege a proper denial of a

constitutional right. The court cannot proceed with the case until such claims are made clear. 

Thus, Petitioner must come forth with a statement of sufficient clarity and a brief statement of

supporting facts to enable a court to understand his argument and to render a decision on the

matter. 

B. Exhaustion

Although it is not clear the claim(s) Petitioner is attempting to raise in the instant petition,

Case 1:05-cv-01617-REC-DLB Document 10 Filed 02/07/06 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

 A copy of the California Supreme Court’s denial alone is insufficient to demonstrate exhaustion. The 2

proper documentation to provide would be a copy of the Petition filed in the California Supreme Court that includes

the claim(s) presented and a file stamp showing that it was indeed filed in that Court. 

3

Petitioner is advised that a petitioner who is in state custody and wishes to collaterally challenge

his conviction by a petition for writ of habeas corpus must exhaust state judicial remedies. 28

U.S.C. § 2254(b)(1). The exhaustion doctrine is based on comity to the state court and gives the

state court the initial opportunity to correct the state's alleged constitutional deprivations. 

Coleman v. Thompson, 501 U.S. 722, 731, 111 S.Ct. 2546, 2554-55 (1991); Rose v. Lundy, 455

U.S. 509, 518, 102 S.Ct. 1198, 1203 (1982); Buffalo v. Sunn, 854 F.2d 1158, 1163 (9 Cir.

th

1988). 

A petitioner can satisfy the exhaustion requirement by providing the highest state court

with a full and fair opportunity to consider each claim before presenting it to the federal court. 

Picard v. Connor, 404 U.S. 270, 276, 92 S.Ct. 509, 512 (1971); Johnson v. Zenon, 88 F.3d 828,

829 (9 Cir. 1996). A federal court will find that the highest state court was given a full and fair th

opportunity to hear a claim if the petitioner has presented the highest state court with the claim's

factual and legal basis. Duncan v. Henry, 513 U.S. 364, 365, 115 S.Ct. 887, 888 (1995) (legal

basis); Kenney v. Tamayo-Reyes, 504 U.S. 1, 112 S.Ct. 1715, 1719 (1992) (factual basis).

Additionally, the petitioner must have specifically told the state court that he was raising a federal

constitutional claim. Duncan, 513 U.S. at 365-66, 115 S.Ct. at 888; Keating v. Hood, 133 F.3d

1240, 1241 (9 Cir.1998). For example, if a petitioner wishes to claim that the trial court th

violated his due process rights "he must say so, not only in federal court but in state court." 

Duncan, 513 U.S. at 366, 115 S.Ct. at 888.

Because it is unclear what, if any, claims were exhausted in the state’s highest court,

Petitioner will be ordered to show cause regarding exhaustion. If possible, Petitioner should

present to the Court documentary evidence that the claims raised in the instant action were indeed

presented to the California Supreme Court.

2

Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

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

Case 1:05-cv-01617-REC-DLB Document 10 Filed 02/07/06 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 that clearly lists each ground for relief

petitioner intends to raise in this Court along with a brief statement of supporting

facts. Petitioner should further specify what claims were raised in the state court

system. 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. Petitioner should also note that every pleading to which an

amendment or supplement is permitted must be retyped and filed so that it is

complete in itself without reference to the prior or superseded pleading. Local

Rule 15-220. 

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

petitioners filing pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254.

Petitioner is forewarned that his failure to comply with this order may result in a

Recommendation that the petition be dismissed pursuant to Local Rule 11-110.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: February 6, 2006 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

3b142a UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-01617-REC-DLB Document 10 Filed 02/07/06 Page 4 of 4