Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-01096/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-01096-0/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

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Petitioner is 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 July 17, 2013. Petitioner raises 

the following five claims for relief: (1) ineffective assistance of appellate counsel; (2) violation of his 

right to a speedy trial; (3) the restitution fine was imposed in violation of his due process rights; (4) 

there is insufficient evidence to support his convictions; and (5) the trial court imposed an illegal 

sentence.

I.

DISCUSSION

Rule 4 of the Rules Governing § 2254 Cases requires the Court to make a preliminary review 

of each petition for writ of habeas corpus. The Court must dismiss a petition "[i]f it plainly appears 

from the face of the petition . . . that the petitioner is not entitled to relief." Rule 4 of the Rules 

STEPHEN DUNCKHURST,

 Petitioner,

v.

CONNIE GIBSON,

Respondent.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 1:13-cv-01096-AWI-SAB (HC)

ORDER DISMISSING PETITION FOR WRIT OF 

HABEAS CORPUS WITH LEAVE TO AMEND, 

DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT TO SEND 

PETITIONER A BLANK § 2254 FORM PETITION, 

AND DIRECTING PETITIONER TO FILE AN 

AMENDED PETITION WITHIN THIRTY DAYS 

FROM THE DATE OF SERVICE OF THIS ORDER

(ECF No. 1)

Case 1:13-cv-01096-AWI-MJS Document 8 Filed 08/30/13 Page 1 of 4
2

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

Governing Section 2254 cases; see also Hendricks v. Vasquez, 908 F.2d 490 (9th Cir. 1990). Rule 

2(c) of the Rules Governing Habeas Corpus Cases requires a petitioner to “state the facts supporting 

each ground” for relief. Rule 2(c)(2), 28 U.S.C. § 2254. A “petitioner is required to allege facts with 

sufficient specificity to support his claim for relief.” Wacht v. Cardwell, 604 F.2d 1245, 1246 (9th 

Cir. 1979). “Bald assertions and conclusory allegations” are insufficient. Id. at 1247 n.2. Summary 

dismissal is appropriate where the allegations in the petition are vague or conclusory. Hendricks v. 

Vasquez, 908 F.3d at 491. However, 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). 

A. Analysis of Claims

As previously stated, Petitioner raises the following claims for relief in the instant petition: (1) 

ineffective assistance of appellate counsel; (2) violation of his right to a speedy trial; (3) the restitution 

fine was imposed in violation of his due process rights; (4) there is insufficient evidence to support his 

convictions; and (5) the trial court imposed an illegal sentence. The Court will analyze the 

cognizability of each claim separately. 

1. Ineffective Assistance of Counsel

Petitioner contends that appellate counsel Laura P. Gordon failed to mount “all legal defense 

set for the charges.” Petitioner also contends that if he “made available grounds which counsel Laura 

P. Gordon did not list in appeal ... counsel[‘]s performance was ineffective. ...” (Pet. at 4.) 

Petitioner’s claim is too vague and conclusory for the Court to ascertain the exact nature of 

Petitioner’s allegations of counsel’s ineffectiveness. Without a sufficient basis as to the acts in which 

Petitioner claims appellate counsel was ineffective, the Court cannot proper analyze his claim. 

Accordingly, Petitioner must file an amended petition to cure such defect. 

2. Due Process-Speedy Trial Right

Petitioner contends his due process right to a speedy trial was violated because the prosecution 

asked for fourteen continuances for the trial to proceed. The fact that the prosecution may have 

requested fourteen continuances prior to trial does not in and of itself demonstrate a violation of 

Petitioner’s right to a speedy trial. Petitioner fails to set forth sufficient factual details, including but 

Case 1:13-cv-01096-AWI-MJS Document 8 Filed 08/30/13 Page 2 of 4
3

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

not limited to the dates of such alleged delays and any resulting prejudice thereto. Accordingly,

Petitioner must amend the petition to provide such factual details. 

3. Restitution/Fine

Petitioner contends that his constitutional rights were violated by the trial court’s imposition of 

a restitution/fine without consideration of his ability to pay such fine. 

Petitioner is advised that a constitutional challenge to the restitution/fine is not cognizable by 

way of § 2254. Pursuant to § 2254, “[t]he Supreme Court, a Justice thereof, a circuit judge, or a 

district court shall entertain an application for a writ of habeas corpus in behalf of a person in custody 

pursuant to the judgment of a State court 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). 

A challenge to the restitution/fine does not affect the fact or duration of petitioner’s custody. 

See Bailey v. Hill, 559 F.3d 976, 979-980 (9th Cir. 2010 (concluding that the court lacked jurisdiction 

over a habeas petition that challenges restitution order because the requirement that restitution be paid 

“is not by ordinary meaning a part of [petitioner’s] custody.”); Calderon v. Ashmus, 523 U.S. 740, 

747 (1998) (limiting § 2254 habeas to challenges to fact or duration of custody); United States v. 

Thiele, 314 F.3d 399, 401 (9th Cir. 2002) (finding challenge to restitution fine not cognizable on 

habeas). Therefore, Petitioner’s challenge to the restitution/fine is not cognizable by way of habeas 

corpus petition and is subject to dismissal. 

4. Insufficient Evidence

Petitioner contends that his conviction was obtained as a result of evidence that was 

insufficient to sustain a verdict of guilt. In support of this claim, Petitioner makes vague reference to 

the recovery of weapon which he claims does not support his conviction. However, Petitioner’s claim 

is completely vague and devoid of factual circumstances to support his claim that there was 

insufficient evidence to support his convictions of assault with and possession of a deadly weapon. 

Petitioner must amend the petition to allege how and what facts are insufficient as to each of his 

convictions which resulted in a constitutional violation. 

///

///

Case 1:13-cv-01096-AWI-MJS Document 8 Filed 08/30/13 Page 3 of 4
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

5. Sentencing Error

Petitioner contends the trial court imposed an illegal sentence in violation of People v. Duran, 

16 Cal.3d 282 (1976). 

Under AEDPA, the Court may entertain a petition for habeas relief on behalf of a California 

state inmate “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). Here, the petition, with respect to Petitioner’s 

sentencing claim, makes no reference to any federal law or constitutional provision. Rather, Petitioner 

alleges error solely under state law. Federal habeas relief is not available for violations of state law or 

for alleged errors in the interpretation or application of state law. See Estelle v. McGuire, 502 U.S. 62, 

67-68 (1991). Thus, Petitioner must amend this claim to specifically allege a constitutional violation 

based on the alleged sentencing error. 

II.

ORDER

Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The instant petition for writ of habeas corpus is dismissed with leave to amend;

2. The Clerk of Court is directed to forward Petitioner a blank § 2254 form petition;

3. Within thirty (30) days from the date of this order, Petitioner shall file an amended 

petition. Petitioner is advised that pursuant to Local Rule 220, the amended petition, must be 

“complete in itself without reference to the prior petition”; and

4. Failure to comply with this order will result in a recommendation that the petition be 

dismissed for failure to comply with a court order. Local Rule 110.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 29, 2013 _ _

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:13-cv-01096-AWI-MJS Document 8 Filed 08/30/13 Page 4 of 4