Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_07-cv-01816/USCOURTS-casd-3_07-cv-01816-2/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

K:\COMMON\EVERYONE\_EFILE-PROSE\WQH\07cv1816 dismiss SAP.wpd, 138 -1- 07cv1816

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JAMES LYNN HINES, Civil No. 07cv1816 WQH (RBB)

Petitioner,

ORDER DISMISSING SECOND

AMENDED PETITION WITHOUT

PREJUDICE

v.

JANET NAPOLITANO, Warden,

Respondent.

On September 14, 2007, Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, submitted a

Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, together with an application

to proceed In Forma Pauperis. On September 26, 2007, this Court granted Petitioner’s

application to proceed In Forma Pauperis, and dismissed the petition with leave to amend for

Petitioner’s failure to clearly and succinctly state his federal claims. [Doc. No. 13.] On October

26, 2007, Petitioner filed a First Amended Petition. [Doc. No. 4.] On November 15, 2007, this

Court dismissed Petitioner’s First Amended Petition for Petitioner’s failure to again clearly and

succinctly state his federal claims, and for Petitioner’s failure to allege exhaustion of state

judicial remedies. [Doc. No. 6.] On December 10, 2007, Petitioner filed a Second Amended

Petition. [Doc. No. 7.] 

FAILURE TO STATE GROUNDS FOR RELIEF IN PETITION

Rule 2(c) of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases states that the petition “shall set

forth in summary form the facts supporting each of the grounds . . . specified [in the petition].”

Rule 2(c), 28 U.S.C. foll. § 2254. See also Boehme v. Maxwell, 423 F.2d 1056, 1058 (9th Cir.

Case 3:07-cv-01816-WQH-RBB Document 9 Filed 01/03/08 Page 1 of 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

K:\COMMON\EVERYONE\_EFILE-PROSE\WQH\07cv1816 dismiss SAP.wpd, 138 -2- 07cv1816

1970) (trial court’s dismissal of federal habeas proceeding affirmed where petitioner made

conclusory allegations instead of factual allegations showing that he was entitled to relief).

Here, Petitioner has violated Rule 2(c). Although Petitioner does not fail to state generalized

constitutional grounds for relief, he does fails to provide coherent and specific factual allegations

in support of such grounds.

While courts should liberally interpret pro se pleadings with leniency and understanding,

this should not place on the reviewing court the entire onus of ferreting out grounds for relief.

Cf. Burkey v. Deeds, 824 F. Supp. 190, 193 (D. Nev. 1993) (finding that courts do not have

entire onus of creating federal claim for petitioner). The Court finds that the Petition contains

conclusory allegations without any specific facts in support of relief. A federal court may not

entertain a petition that contains allegations which are conclusory. 

This Court would have to engage in a tenuous analysis in order to attempt to identify and

make sense of the Petition and its numerous attachments. In order to satisfy Rule 2(c), Petitioner

must point to a “real possibility of constitutional error.” Cf. Blackledge v. Allison, 431 U.S. 63,

75 n.7 (1977) (internal quotation marks omitted). Facts must be stated, in the petition, with

sufficient detail to enable the Court to determine, from the face of the petition, whether further

habeas corpus review is warranted. Adams v. Armontrout, 897 F.2d 332, 334 (8th Cir. 1990).

Moreover, the allegations should be sufficiently specific to permit the respondent to assert

appropriate objections and defenses. Harris v. Allen, 739 F. Supp. 564, 565 (W.D. Okla. 1989).

Here, the lack of grounds for relief in the Petition prevents the Respondent from being able to

assert appropriate objections and defenses.

Due to Petitioner’s unsatisfactory showing, the Court dismisses the action without

prejudice. Should Petitioner decide to file a new petition, he is advised to clearly and succinctly

state all grounds for relief using the Third Amended Petition form sent to Petitioner with this

order. Petitioner is cautioned that if the Third Amended Petition fails to cure the pleading

deficiencies identified in this Order and previous Orders of Dismissal, the case will be

subject to dismissal without further leave to amend.

//

//

Case 3:07-cv-01816-WQH-RBB Document 9 Filed 01/03/08 Page 2 of 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

K:\COMMON\EVERYONE\_EFILE-PROSE\WQH\07cv1816 dismiss SAP.wpd, 138 -3- 07cv1816

CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, the Court DISMISSES the petition for failure to state cognizable

claims for relief. In order to have this case reopened, Petitioner must submit a Third Amended

Petition that cures the deficiencies outlined above no later than February 4, 2008. For

Petitioner’s convenience, the Clerk of Court shall attach a blank Third Amended Petition for to

this Order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: January 3, 2008

WILLIAM Q. HAYES

United States District Judge

Case 3:07-cv-01816-WQH-RBB Document 9 Filed 01/03/08 Page 3 of 3