Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-00767/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-00767-0/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ERIC WATKINS,

Petitioner,

v.

A. HEDGPETH,

Respondent.

 /

1:07-CV-00767 AWI DLB HC

ORDER DISMISSING PETITION WITH

LEAVE TO AMEND

[Doc. 1]

ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT TO

SEND PETITIONER A BLANK HABEAS

PETITION

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

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 

On May 25, 2007, Petitioner, along with Robert Ellis, filed the instant petition for writ of

habeas corpus. 

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

Case 1:07-cv-00767-AWI-DLB Document 4 Filed 07/23/07 Page 1 of 5
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

claim for relief can be pleaded were such leave granted. Jarvis v. Nelson, 440 F.2d 13, 14 (9th

Cir. 1971).

B. Multiple Petitioners

The instant petition lists Robert Ellis and Eric Watkins as Petitioners. However, only one

individual may file a petition for writ of habeas corpus. Thus, if both seek relief by way of

section 2254 petition, each must file an individual petition. The Court cannot proceed with a

petition which contains two named petitioners. As explained below, neither petitioner signed the

petition. However, petitioner, Eric Watkins, signed the motion to proceed in forma pauperis,

therefore, this action shall proceed with him as Petitioner. Petitioner, Robert Ellis, will be

dismissed from the action, and if desired, he may re-file a new § 2254 petition. 

C. Failure to State a Claim

The basic scope of habeas corpus is prescribed by statute. Subsection (c) of Section 2241

of Title 28 of the United States Code provides that habeas corpus shall not extend to a prisoner

unless he is “in custody in violation of the Constitution.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a) states:

The 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 a 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.

(emphasis added). See also, Rule 1 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United

States District Court. The Supreme Court has held that “the essence of habeas corpus is an attack

by a person in custody upon the legality of that custody . . .” Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475,

484 (1973). 

Furthermore, in order to succeed in a petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, Petitioner

must demonstrate that the adjudication of his claim in state court

resulted in a decision that was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable

application of, clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme

Court of the United States; or resulted in a decision that was based on an

unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented in the

State court proceedings.

28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1),(2).

 In addition, Petitioner must state his claim with sufficient specificity. See Hendricks v.

Case 1:07-cv-00767-AWI-DLB Document 4 Filed 07/23/07 Page 2 of 5
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

Vasquez, 908 F.2d 490, 491-92 (9 Cir. 1990); Wacht v. Cardwell, 604 F.2d 1245, 1246-47 (9 th th

Cir. 1979). Rule 2(c) of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases states:

The petition must:

(1) specify all the grounds for relief available to the petitioner;

(2) state the facts supporting each ground;

(3) state the relief requested;

(4) be printed, typewritten, or legibly handwritten; and

(5) be signed under penalty of perjury by the petitioner or by a person authorized

to sign it for the petitioner under 28 U.S.C. § 2242.

The instant petition is completely deficient. The only information provided on the

petition is that Petitioner is challenging a sentence, he has previously challenged his conviction,

and he testified at trial. Petitioner did not fill out the form petition and listed no grounds for

relief or any facts to support such grounds. Nor does Petitioner state the relief he requests. 

Petitioner also fails to provide the details of his conviction such as the date. 

In addition, Petitioner does not allege a violation of the Constitution or federal law, nor

does he argue that he is in custody in violation of the Constitution or federal law. Petitioner does

not allege that the adjudication of his claims in state court “resulted in a decision that was

contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, . . . or

resulted in a decision that was based on an unreasonable determination of the facts. . . .” 28

U.S.C. § 2254.

Therefore, the petition must be dismissed; however, Petitioner will be given an

opportunity to file an amended petition. Petitioner is advised that failure to file a complete

petition raising cognizable federal claims within the time allotted will result in a recommendation

that the petition be dismissed and the action be terminated. Petitioner is advised that the

amended petition should be titled “First Amended Petition, and reference the instant case

number.”

D. Failure to Exhaust State Remedies

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

Case 1:07-cv-00767-AWI-DLB Document 4 Filed 07/23/07 Page 3 of 5
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

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. 1988). th

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.

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; Lyons v. Crawford, 232 F.3d 666,

669 (9th Cir.2000), amended, 247 F.3d 904 (2001); Hiivala v. Wood, 195 F.3d 1098, 1106 (9th

Cir.1999); Keating v. Hood, 133 F.3d 1240, 1241 (9 Cir.1998). In Duncan, the United States th

Supreme Court reiterated the rule as follows: 

In Picard v. Connor, 404 U.S. 270, 275 . . . (1971), we said that exhaustion 

of state remedies requires that petitioners "fairly presen[t]" federal claims to the 

state courts in order to give the State the "'opportunity to pass upon and correct 

alleged violations of the prisoners' federal rights" (some internal quotation marks

omitted). If state courts are to be given the opportunity to correct alleged violations

of prisoners' federal rights, they must surely be alerted to the fact that the prisoners

are asserting claims under the United States Constitution. If a habeas petitioner 

wishes to claim that an evidentiary ruling at a state court trial denied him the due 

process of law guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment, he must say so, not only 

in federal court, but in state court. 

Duncan, 513 U.S. at 365-366. The Ninth Circuit examined the rule further, stating:

Our rule is that a state prisoner has not "fairly presented" (and thus 

exhausted) his federal claims in state court unless he specifically indicated to 

Case 1:07-cv-00767-AWI-DLB Document 4 Filed 07/23/07 Page 4 of 5
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

that court that those claims were based on federal law. See Shumway v. Payne, 

223 F.3d 982, 987-88 (9th Cir. 2000). Since the Supreme Court's decision in 

Duncan, this court has held that the petitioner must make the federal basis of the 

claim explicit either by citing federal law or the decisions of federal courts, even

if the federal basis is “self-evident," Gatlin v. Madding, 189 F.3d 882, 889 

(9th Cir. 1999) (citing Anderson v. Harless, 459 U.S. 4, 7 . . . (1982), or the

underlying claim would be decided under state law on the same considerations

that would control resolution of the claim on federal grounds. Hiivala v. Wood, 

195 F3d 1098, 1106-07 (9th Cir. 1999); Johnson v. Zenon, 88 F.3d 828, 830-31 

(9th Cir. 1996); . . . .

In Johnson, we explained that the petitioner must alert the state court to 

the fact that the relevant claim is a federal one without regard to how similar the 

state and federal standards for reviewing the claim may be or how obvious the 

violation of federal law is. 

Lyons v. Crawford, 232 F.3d 666, 668-669 (9th Cir. 2000) (italics added). 

In this case, Petitioner fails to state that he has sought relief in the California Supreme

Court. Assuming he has not done so, the instant petition is unexhausted and must be dismissed.

E. Signature Under Penalty of Perjury

Petitioner did not sign the petition. Local Rule 7-131 requires a document submitted to

the Court for filing to include an original signature. In addition, Rule 2 of the Rules Governing

Section 2254 Cases requires a petition for writ of habeas corpus to “be signed under penalty of

perjury by the petitioner.” Rule 2(c), Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. Accordingly,

Petitioner must sign the petition under penalty of perjury.

ORDER

Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The petition for writ of habeas corpus is DISMISSED;

2. Petitioner, Robert Ellis, is DISMISSED from the action;

3. Petitioner is granted thirty (30) days from the date of service of this order to file

an amended petition in compliance with this order; and

4. The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to send Petitioner a blank § 2254 petition. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: July 21, 2007 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

3b142a UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:07-cv-00767-AWI-DLB Document 4 Filed 07/23/07 Page 5 of 5