Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-01856/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-01856-2/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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RAMIRO GARZA,

Petitioner,

v.

ON HABEAS CORPUS,

Respondent.

 /

CV F 06-1856 OWW SMS HC

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

REGARDING PETITION FOR WRIT OF

HABEAS CORPUS 

[Doc. 6]

Petitioner is a state prisoner 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 on December 20, 2006. On January

31, 2007, the Court dismissed the petition with leave to amend as no cognizable claims were

raised. On February 7, 2007, Petitioner filed an amended petition. (Court Doc. 6.) 

DISCUSSION

A. Procedural Grounds for Summary Dismissal

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

Rules Governing 2254 Cases; see also Hendricks v. Vasquez, 908 F.2d 490, 491 (9th Cir. 1990).

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

Case 1:06-cv-01856-OWW -SMS Document 7 Filed 05/10/07 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

2

F.2d 13, 14 (9 Cir. 1971). th

B. Failure to State Cognizable 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 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 amended petition, Petitioner fails to raise any cognizable or coherent claims for

relief. The Court has previously granted Petitioner the opportunity to amend the petition and

Petitioner has failed to comply with the order. Accordingly, dismissal of the action for failure to

state a claim is warranted. 

RECOMMENDATION

Accordingly, the Court HEREBY RECOMMENDS that the instant petition for writ of

habeas corpus be DISMISSED for failure to state a claim cognizable under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 

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

Case 1:06-cv-01856-OWW -SMS Document 7 Filed 05/10/07 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

3

District of California. 

Within thirty (30) days 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 (9 Cir. 1991). th

 IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 9, 2007 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder 

icido3 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-01856-OWW -SMS Document 7 Filed 05/10/07 Page 3 of 3