Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-01520/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-01520-1/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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RAMIRO MATA TAPIA,

Petitioner,

v.

M.S. EVANS,

Respondent.

 /

CV F 06-1520 AWI DLB HC

ORDER DIRECTING PETITIONER TO FILE

AN AMENDED PETITION

[Doc. 1]

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 corpus on October 27, 2006. (Court

Doc. 1.) 

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

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

In the instant petition, Petitioner challenges the imposition of a restitution fine. Although

it is not entirely clear, it appears that Petitioner contends that counsel failed to explain the

Case 1:06-cv-01520-DLB Document 9 Filed 01/09/07 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

 Section 2254 provides that a federal court may entertain a habeas petition “in behalf of a person in 1

custody pursuant to the 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.” 

2

restitution consequences and the trial court improperly imposed the fine. (Petition, at 6-9.) In

another part of the petition, Petitioner contends “I am innocent don’t commit the crime, for fault

of a counsel active them guilt me, but I not did any crime.” (Petition, at 9.) 

 Petitioner is advised that a pure challenge to the imposition of restitution, is not

cognizable under § 2254, because it does not challenge the validity or duration of his

confinement. Thus, to the extent Petitioner purely challenges the imposition of the restitution 1

fine, it is not cognizable. However, it is unclear to the Court if Petitioner is attempting to raise

other claims. In presenting a petition for writ of habeas corpus, a petitioner must “specify all the

grounds for relief which are available to the petitioner and of which he has or by the exercise of

reasonable diligence should have knowledge and shall set forth in summary form the facts

supporting each of the grounds thus specified.” Rule 2(c) of the Rules Governing Section 2254

Cases. The petition for writ of habeas corpus presently before this Court is deficient, because

Petitioner fails to clearly raise his claims for relief.. It is not the province of a federal habeas

court to guess as to what claims Petitioner is attempting to raise or to conduct an independent

review of Petitioner’s state court proceedings to determine what federal claims Petitioner seeks to

raise; the responsibility to assert a claim for relief unquestionably belongs to the petitioner. 

Because this Court cannot entertain an application for a writ of habeas corpus if a federal

constitutional violation has not occurred, the Court must dismiss the petition. However, the

Court will grant Petitioner leave to file an amended petition before recommending the petition be

dismissed. Petitioner is advised that the amended petition should be entitled “First Amended

Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus” and must reference the case number of this action. 

Petitioner is advised that the amended petition must set forth all of his claims, including all the

facts and arguments in support of those claims. Petitioner must allege constitutional violations

which are cognizable on federal habeas review, and Petitioner must demonstrate how the

adjudication of his claims in state court “resulted in a decision that was contrary to, or involved

Case 1:06-cv-01520-DLB Document 9 Filed 01/09/07 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

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(d). In

discerning Petitioner’s claims, the Court will not consider the original petition or any reference to

state court proceedings. 

Failure to file an amended petition in compliance with this order may result in a

recommendation that the petition be dismissed for Petitioner’s failure to comply with a court

order and for failure to state a federal claim. 

ORDER

Accordingly, Petitioner is HEREBY ORDERED to file an amended petition for writ of

habeas corpus within thirty (30) days of the date of service of this order. Furthermore, the Clerk

of the Court is DIRECTED to send Petitioner blank forms for filing a petition pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 2254. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: January 8, 2007 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

3b142a UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-01520-DLB Document 9 Filed 01/09/07 Page 3 of 3