Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00904/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00904-1/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

U.S. District Court

 E. D. California cd 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RODGER PHILLIP ROBBINS, JR., )

)

Petitioner, )

)

v. )

)

)

TUOLUMNE COUNTY, )

)

Respondent. )

 )

1:06-CV-00904 OWW LJO HC

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION

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

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. This action has been referred to this Court pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Local Rule 72-302.

On July 17, 2006, Petitioner filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus in this Court. 

Following a preliminary review of the petition, on August 21, 2006, the Court issued an order

dismissing the petition. Petitioner was granted thirty (30) days to file an amended petition in

compliance with the Court’s order. Over thirty days have passed and Petitioner has not complied.

DISCUSSION

A. Procedural Grounds for Summary Dismissal

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

Case 1:06-cv-00904-LJO -LJO Document 7 Filed 10/13/06 Page 1 of 6
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

U.S. District Court

 E. D. California cd 2

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 (9 Cir. 1971). th

B. Failure to State a Discernable Claim

Petitioner must state his claim with sufficient specificity. See Hendricks v. Vasquez 908 F.2d

at 491-92; Wacht v. Cardwell, 604 F.2d 1245, 1246-47 (9th Cir.1979). Rule 2(c) of the Rules

Governing Section 2254 Cases (emphasis added) 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 appears to present two grounds for relief. However, those grounds are

completely unclear. In Ground One, Petitioner mentions “recant statements” from two individuals;

but he does not state how these statements are relevant to his underlying conviction. Indeed,

Petitioner does not even state his underlying conviction. In Ground Two, Petitioner states he is

wrongfully imprisoned, but again, he fails to state why. He notes that he asked for a Marsden motion

and the judge denied the motion, and he states his attorney was disqualified from a prior case;

however, he fails to state why these facts are relevant. Was the Marsden motion wrongfully denied? 

If so, why? How is the attorney’s disqualification in a prior matter relevant to Petitioner’s trial?

The Court cannot discern Petitioner’s claims from the information provided. Petitioner fails

to identify any of his grounds for relief with any specificity and he fails to support his claims with

sufficient facts. Therefore, the petition must be dismissed. 

C. Failure to State a Federal Claim

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

Case 1:06-cv-00904-LJO -LJO Document 7 Filed 10/13/06 Page 2 of 6
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

U.S. District Court

 E. D. California cd 3

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 to 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

proceeding.

28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1),(2). 

In the instant case, Petitioner fails to state a cognizable federal claim. 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. 

Accordingly, the petition must be dismissed.

D. Exhaustion of 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

opportunity to correct the state's alleged constitutional deprivations. Coleman v. Thompson, 501

U.S. 722, 731 (1991); Rose v. Lundy, 455 U.S. 509, 518 (1982); Buffalo v. Sunn, 854 F.2d 1158,

Case 1:06-cv-00904-LJO -LJO Document 7 Filed 10/13/06 Page 3 of 6
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

U.S. District Court

 E. D. California cd 4

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. Duncan v.

Henry, 513 U.S. 364, 365 (1995); Picard v. Connor, 404 U.S. 270, 276 (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 th

and fair opportunity to hear a claim if the petitioner has presented the highest state court with the

claim's factual and legal basis. Duncan, 513 U.S. at 365 (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; 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 (9 Cir.1999); th

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

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 

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. 

Case 1:06-cv-00904-LJO -LJO Document 7 Filed 10/13/06 Page 4 of 6
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

U.S. District Court

 E. D. California cd 5

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

In the instant petition before the Court, Petitioner fails to state whether he sought relief in the

California Supreme Court, and if he did, whether he raised the grounds he presents in this petition. 

If the grounds were not presented to the California Supreme Court, they are unexhausted and the

petition must be dismissed to provide Petitioner an opportunity to exhaust the claims. 28 U.S.C.

§ 2254(b)(1); Rose, 455 U.S. at 521-22. 

E. Failure to Name a Proper Respondent

In this case, Petitioner names Tuolumne County as Respondent. Petitioner is incarcerated at 

Avenal State Prison (“ASP”) located in Avenal, California. According to the website maintained by

the California Department of Corrections, the warden at that facility is Kathy Mendoza-Powers. See

Cal. Dept. of Corr. and Rehab., http://www.corr.ca.gov/Visitors/fac_prison_AVENAL.html (last

visited August 18, 2006).

A petitioner seeking habeas corpus relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 must name the state officer

having custody of him as the respondent to the petition. Rule 2 (a) of the Rules Governing § 2254

Cases; Ortiz-Sandoval v. Gomez, 81 F.3d 891, 894 (9th Cir. 1996); Stanley v. California Supreme

Court, 21 F.3d 359, 360 (9th Cir. 1994). Normally, the person having custody of an incarcerated

petitioner is the warden of the prison in which the petitioner is incarcerated because the warden has

"day-to-day control over" the petitioner. Brittingham v. United States, 982 F.2d 378, 379 (9th Cir.

1992); see also, Stanley v. California Supreme Court, 21 F.3d 359, 360 (9th Cir. 1994). However,

the chief officer in charge of state penal institutions is also appropriate. Ortiz, 81 F.3d at 894;

Stanley, 21 F.3d at 360. Where a petitioner is on probation or parole, the proper respondent is his

probation or parole officer and the official in charge of the parole or probation agency or state

correctional agency. Id. 

Petitioner’s failure to name a proper respondent requires dismissal of his habeas petition for

lack of jurisdiction. Stanley, 21 F.3d at 360; Olson v. California Adult Auth., 423 F.2d 1326, 1326

(9th Cir. 1970); see also, Billiteri v. United States Bd. Of Parole, 541 F.2d 938, 948 (2nd Cir. 1976).

However, the Court will give Petitioner the opportunity to cure this defect by amending the petition

to name a proper respondent, such as the warden of his facility. See West v. Louisiana, 478 F.2d

Case 1:06-cv-00904-LJO -LJO Document 7 Filed 10/13/06 Page 5 of 6
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

U.S. District Court

 E. D. California cd 6

1026, 1029 (5th Cir.1973), vacated in part on other grounds, 510 F.2d 363 (5th Cir.1975) (en banc)

(allowing petitioner to amend petition to name proper respondent); Ashley v. State of Washington,

394 F.2d 125 (9th Cir. 1968) (same).

F. Conclusion

The instant petition must be dismissed for the above-stated reasons. Petitioner was granted an

opportunity to file an amended petition to cure the deficiencies; however, Petitioner did not do so. 

Petitioner was advised that failure to file a petition in compliance with the Court’s order within the

allotted time would result in a recommendation that the petition be dismissed and the action be

terminated.

RECOMMENDATION

Accordingly, the Court HEREBY RECOMMENDS that this action be DISMISSED and the

Clerk of Court be DIRECTED to enter judgment. 

This Findings and Recommendation is submitted to the Honorable Oliver W. Wanger, United

States District Court Judge, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. section 636 (b)(1)(B) and Rule

72-304 of the Local Rules of Practice for the United States District Court, Eastern District of

California. Within ten (10) court days (plus three days if served by mail) after being served with a

copy, any party may file written objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a

document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendation.” 

Replies to the objections shall be served and filed within ten (10) court days (plus three days if

served by mail) after service of the objections. The Court will then review the Magistrate Judge’s

ruling pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). The parties are advised that failure to file objections

within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst,

951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 13, 2006 /s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill 

b9ed48 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-00904-LJO -LJO Document 7 Filed 10/13/06 Page 6 of 6