Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-01553/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-01553-0/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

17cv1553 GPC (WVG)

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RICHARD J. STANLEY,

Petitioner,

v.

D. ASUNCION, Warden,

Respondent.

Case No. 17cv1553 GPC (WVG)

ORDER: (1) GRANTING 

APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN 

FORMA PAUPERIS AND 

(2) DISMISSING CASE WITHOUT 

PREJUDICE

Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed a Petition for Writ of 

Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254.

REQUEST TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS

Along with his Petition, Petitioner submitted a copy of his prison trust account 

statement, which this Court liberally construes as a request to proceed in forma pauperis. 

Petitioner has $0.03 on account at the California correctional institution in which he is 

presently confined. Petitioner cannot afford the $5.00 filing fee. Thus, the Court 

GRANTS Petitioner’s application to proceed in forma pauperis, and allows Petitioner to 

prosecute the above-referenced action without being required to prepay fees or costs and 

without being required to post security. The Clerk of the Court shall file the Petition for 

Writ of Habeas Corpus without prepayment of the filing fee.

 

Case 3:17-cv-01553-GPC-WVG Document 3 Filed 08/09/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 3
2

17cv1553 GPC (WVG)

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

FAILURE TO STATE A COGNIZABLE CLAIM

Nonetheless, the Petition must be dismissed without prejudice, in accordance with 

Rule 4 of the rules governing § 2254 cases, because Petitioner has failed to allege that his 

state court conviction or sentence violates the Constitution of the United States.

Title 28, United States Code, § 2254(a), sets forth the following scope of review for 

federal habeas corpus claims:

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 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.

28 U.S.C. § 2254(a) (emphasis added). See Hernandez v. Ylst, 930 F.2d 714, 719 (9th 

Cir. 1991); Mannhalt v. Reed, 847 F.2d 576, 579 (9th Cir. 1988); Kealohapauole v. 

Shimoda, 800 F.2d 1463, 1464-65 (9th Cir. 1986). Thus, to present a cognizable federal 

habeas corpus claim under § 2254, a state prisoner must allege both that he is in custody 

pursuant to a “judgment of a State court,” and that he is in custody in “violation of the 

Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.” See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a). Upon 

review of the Petition, it appears to the Court that a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus 

brought pursuant to § 2254 is not the proper vehicle for the claims Petitioner presents. 

Petitioner seeks only to have this Court order the state court to provide him with the trial 

transcripts related to his 1994 conviction in San Diego Superior Court. Petitioner’s claim 

is not cognizable on habeas because it challenge the constitutional validity or duration of 

Petitioner’s confinement. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a); Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 

500 (1973); Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 480-85 (1994). “Section 2254 applies only 

to collateral attacks on state court judgments.” McGuire v. Blubaum, 376 F. Supp. 284, 

285 (D. Ariz. 1974).

In no way does Petitioner he challenge the fact or duration of his conviction, nor 

does he claim his state court conviction violates the Constitution or laws or treaties of the 

Case 3:17-cv-01553-GPC-WVG Document 3 Filed 08/09/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 3
3

17cv1553 GPC (WVG)

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

United States. Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases provides for summary 

dismissal of a habeas petition “[i]f it plainly appears from the face of the petition and any 

exhibits annexed to it that the petitioner is not entitled to relief in the district court.” Rule 4, 

28 U.S.C. foll. § 2254. Here, it is plain from the petition that Petitioner is not presently 

entitled to federal habeas relief because he has not alleged that the state court violated his 

federal rights.

CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, the Court GRANTS Petitioner’s request to proceed in 

forma pauperis and DISMISSES the Petition without prejudice. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 9, 2017

Case 3:17-cv-01553-GPC-WVG Document 3 Filed 08/09/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 3