Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_09-cv-01495/USCOURTS-cand-5_09-cv-01495-1/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

Order Granting Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss; Dismissing Petition with Leave to Amend

P:\PRO-SE\SJ.Rmw\HC.09\Harmon495mtd.wpd

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

L .C. HARMON,

Petitioner,

 vs.

B. CURRY, Warden,

Respondent. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C 09-1495 RMW (PR)

ORDER GRANTING

RESPONDENT’S MOTION TO

DISMISS; DISMISSING

PETITION WITH LEAVE TO

AMEND

Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging a prison disciplinary finding. The court ordered

respondent to show cause why the petition should not be granted. Respondent filed a motion to

dismiss the petition for failing to sufficiently plead a cognizable federal claim. Petitioner filed

an opposition. Respondent filed a reply. Having reviewed the papers, the court GRANTS

respondent’s motion to dismiss and dismisses the petition with leave to amend. 

BACKGROUND

According to the petition, on October 27, 2007, petitioner received a “128A Custodial

Counseling Chrono” and was found guilty of violating the prison rules. Petitioner filed a state

habeas petition in superior court which was denied on October 30, 2008. The California Court

of Appeal also denied his petition on December 9, 2008. The California Supreme Court denied

his petition on February 18, 2009. Petitioner thereafter filed the instant petition on April 6,

*E-FILED - 6/29/10*

Case 5:09-cv-01495-RMW Document 12 Filed 06/29/10 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

Order Granting Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss; Dismissing Petition with Leave to Amend

P:\PRO-SE\SJ.Rmw\HC.09\Harmon495mtd.wpd 2

2009.

DISCUSSION

Respondent argues that petitioner fails to allege his claims with specificity because the

petition attaches several copies of state petitions which appear to address different issues. 

(Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss (“Mot.”) at 2.) Petitioner argues that his petition may indeed

be deficient for lack of specificity, however, he could remedy it through amendment. (Opp. at

2.) 

Federal courts have a duty to construe pro se petitions for writs of habeas corpus

liberally. Zichko v. Idaho, 247 F.3d 1015, 1020 (9th Cir. 2001); cf. Selam v. Warm Springs

Tribal Correctional Facility, 134 F.3d 948, 952 (9th Cir. 1998) (holding that magistrate judge

properly construed petition as challenging two convictions, even though the petitioner identified

only one conviction as the “offense involved” on the petition form, because the factual

allegations of the petition alluded to both of the petitioner’s trials). 

In ordinary civil proceedings, the governing rule, Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure, requires only “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is

entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). Rule 2(c) of the Rules Governing Habeas Corpus

cases requires a more detailed statement. The habeas rule instructs the petitioner to “specify all

the grounds for relief available to [him]” and to “state the facts supporting each ground.” See

also Hendricks v. Vasquez, 908 F.2d 490, 491-92 (9th Cir. 1990) (habeas petitioner must state

his claims with sufficient specificity). A prime purpose of Rule 2(c)’s demand that habeas

petitioners plead with particularity is to assist the district court in determining whether the state

should be ordered to show cause why the writ should not be granted. Mayle v. Felix, 545 U.S.

644, 655-56 (2005) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 2253). Conclusory allegations in a habeas petition fail to

state a claim and do not suffice to shift the burden to the state to answer an order to show cause. 

See Allard v. Nelson, 423 F.2d 1216, 1217 (9th Cir. 1970). However, where the petition is

deficient the petitioner should be given leave to amend. See Jarvis v. Nelson, 440 F.2d 13, 14

(9th Cir. 1971). 

While the court agrees with respondent’s observations that petitioner’s petition is not the

Case 5:09-cv-01495-RMW Document 12 Filed 06/29/10 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

Order Granting Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss; Dismissing Petition with Leave to Amend

P:\PRO-SE\SJ.Rmw\HC.09\Harmon495mtd.wpd 3

example of clarity, here, liberally construed, petitioner appears to allege that his right to due

process was violated when the prison found him guilty of a rules violation report without

sufficient proof. Petitioner cites Wolffv. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539 (1974) as the basis for his

constitutional challenge. 

Upon further review of the petition, however, it appears that the relief petitioner seeks is

expungement of the rules violation report and his 128 chrono because petitioner believes that the

chrono could “potentially effect [sic] a future parole hearing.” It is not clear if any of

petitioner’s credits have been forfeited as a result of the chrono or if the expungement of the

chrono and violation report will in any way shorten his sentence. Petitioner is cautioned that the

Ninth Circuit has held that “habeas jurisdiction is absent, and a § 1983 action proper, where a

successful challenge to a prison condition will not necessarily shorten the prisoner’s sentence.”

Ramirez v. Galaza, 334 F.3d 850, 859 (9th Cir. 2003). If there was no credit forfeiture, for

example, there would be no restoration of credits to necessarily shorten petitioner’s duration of

confinement. See Raditch v. United States, 929 F.2d 478, 481 (9th Cir. 1991). Because success

or failure on petitioner’s claim would not affect the length of his sentence, this claim cannot be

brought in a habeas case. Cf. Redd v. Kirkland, No. 06-7566 JF (PR), 2008 WL 2705577, at *2

(N.D. Cal. July 10, 2008) (dismissing a petition for failure to state a federal habeas claim when it

challenged guilty finding from prison disciplinary hearing because it was factor in the Board of

Parole Hearings’ denial of parole eligibility). If the petition does not state a cognizable claim for

federal habeas relief, the court would be required to dismiss it without leave to amend.

Out of an abundance of caution, however, and in light of respondent’s motion and

petitioner’s concession that the petition may be defective, the court will grant respondent’s

motion to dismiss and allow petitioner to file an amended petition that specifies with

particularity “all the grounds for relief available” and to “state the facts supporting each ground.” 

Rule 2(c), Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts, 28 U.S.C.

foll. § 2254. Accordingly, respondent’s motion to dismiss the instant petition (docket no. 7) is

GRANTED. The instant petition is DISMISSED with leave to amend in order for petitioner to

clearly state his grounds for relief and provide sufficient facts to support his claim. 

Case 5:09-cv-01495-RMW Document 12 Filed 06/29/10 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

Order Granting Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss; Dismissing Petition with Leave to Amend

P:\PRO-SE\SJ.Rmw\HC.09\Harmon495mtd.wpd 4

CONCLUSION 

1. Respondent’s motion to dismiss the instant petition (docket no. 7) is 

GRANTED. 

 2. The instant petition is DISMISSED with leave to amend within thirty (30) 

days from the date of petitioner’s receipt of this order. The amended petition must include the

caption and civil case number used in this order (C 09-1495 RMW (PR)) and the words

AMENDED PETITION on the first page. The amendment shall be on the court’s form for

habeas petitions, a copy of which is enclosed with petitioner’s copy of this order. 

Petitioner shall allege specific facts in support of his allegations in order for respondent

to file his answer. Petitioner need not cite to any additional legal argument, but rather he should

describe the facts in support of each of his grounds for relief. Petitioner shall take care to write

clearly and legibly, so that the court can read what he writes. He must clearly state the grounds

for habeas relief challenging either underlying state court criminal conviction or the legality of

his confinement. He must set out how he has exhausted his claims, that is, what he did to present

them first to the highest state court available, which is the Supreme Court of California. If

petitioner fails to file an amended petition in conformity with this order, this action will be

dismissed without prejudice.

3. It is petitioner’s responsibility to prosecute this case. Petitioner is reminded that

all communications with the court must be served on respondent by mailing a true copy of the

document to respondent’s counsel. Petitioner must keep the court and all parties informed of any

change of address by filing a separate paper captioned “Notice of Change of Address.” He must

comply with the court’s orders in a timely fashion. Failure to do so may result in the dismissal

of this action for failure to prosecute pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). 

This order terminates docket no. 7.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: _______________ RONALD M. WHYTE 

United States District Judge

6/29/10

Case 5:09-cv-01495-RMW Document 12 Filed 06/29/10 Page 4 of 4