Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-01789/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-01789-0/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

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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Petitioner is a prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma 

pauperis with a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 

U.S.C. § 2254. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 636(c)(1), Petitioner has 

consented to the jurisdiction of the United States Magistrate Judge 

to conduct all further proceedings in the case, including the entry 

of final judgment, by manifesting his consent in a writing signed by 

Petitioner and filed on December 6, 2013 (doc. 5). Pending before 

the Court is the petition, which was filed on November 1, 2013. 

I. Screening the Petition

Rule 4 of the Rules Governing ' 2254 Cases in the United States 

District Courts (Habeas Rules) requires the Court to make a 

ZANE HUBBARD,

 Petitioner,

v.

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF 

CALIFORNIA,

Respondents.

Case No. 1:13cv-01789-SKO-HC

ORDER DISMISSING PETITION FOR WRIT 

OF HABEAS CORPUS WITHOUT PREJUDICE 

(DOC. 1)

ORDER DECLINING TO ISSUE A 

CERTIFICTAE OF APPEALABILITY AND 

DIRECTING THE CLERK TO CLOSE THE 

CASE

Case 1:13-cv-01789-SKO Document 6 Filed 01/03/14 Page 1 of 5
2

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

preliminary review of each petition for writ of habeas corpus. The 

Court must summarily dismiss a petition "[i]f it plainly appears 

from the petition and any attached exhibits that the petitioner is 

not entitled to relief in the district court....@ Habeas Rule 4; 

O=Bremski v. Maass, 915 F.2d 418, 420 (9th Cir. 1990); see also

Hendricks v. Vasquez, 908 F.2d 490 (9th Cir. 1990). Habeas Rule 

2(c) requires that a petition 1) specify all grounds of relief 

available to the Petitioner; 2) state the facts supporting each 

ground; and 3) state the relief requested. Notice pleading is not 

sufficient; the petition must state facts that point to a real 

possibility of constitutional error. Rule 4, Advisory Committee 

Notes, 1976 Adoption; O=Bremski v. Maass, 915 F.2d at 420 (quoting 

Blackledge v. Allison, 431 U.S. 63, 75 n.7 (1977)). Allegations in 

a petition that are vague, conclusory, or palpably incredible are 

subject to summary dismissal. Hendricks v. Vasquez, 908 F.2d at 

491.

The Court may dismiss a petition for writ of habeas corpus 

either on its own motion under Habeas Rule 4, pursuant to the 

respondent's motion to dismiss, or after an answer to the petition 

has been filed. Advisory Committee Notes to Habeas Rule 8, 1976 

Adoption; see, Herbst v. Cook, 260 F.3d 1039, 1042-43 (9th Cir. 

2001). However, 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 (9th Cir. 1971).

Here, Petitioner, an inmate of the Corcoran State Prison, is 

serving a sentence of fifteen years to life plus a determinate term 

of twenty-four years and eight months imposed by the Kern County 

Case 1:13-cv-01789-SKO Document 6 Filed 01/03/14 Page 2 of 5
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

Superior Court on or about April 5, 2011, for commission of 

kidnaping, carjacking, assault, and firearms offenses with 

enhancements for conduct related to firearms and street gang 

activity. (Id. at 11-12, 39.) Petitioner complains not only of 

errors relating to the trial proceedings that resulted in the 

judgment pursuant to which Petitioner is now confined, but also some

issues that appear to relate to conditions of Petitioner’s

confinement. (Id. at 11-35.)

II. Subject Matter Jurisdiction

A federal court is a court of limited jurisdiction which has a 

continuing duty to determine its own subject matter jurisdiction and 

to dismiss an action where it appears that the Court lacks 

jurisdiction. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3); CSIBI v. Fustos, 670 F.2d

134, 136 n. 3 (9th Cir. 1982) (citing City of Kenosha v. Bruno, 412 

U.S. 507, 511-512 (1973)); Billingsley v. C.I.R., 868 F.2d 1081, 

1085 (9th Cir. 1989).

A review of the petition reveals that it is a petition for writ 

of certiorari that is directed to the United States Supreme Court. 

The petition is captioned for the United States Supreme Court and is 

entitled as a petition for writ of certiorari. (Pet., doc. 1, 1, 

9.) Petitioner invokes the jurisdiction of the Court pursuant to 28 

U.S.C. § 1257(a), which provides for review of state court judgments 

by the United States Supreme Court pursuant to a writ of certiorari, 

and he prays for relief in the form of a writ of certiorari. (Id.

at 35-36.) Petitioner apparently meant for this document to be 

filed in the United States Supreme Court, and it was mistakenly 

filed in this Court. Because this Court lacks jurisdiction over the 

petition for writ of certiorari, the petition will be dismissed. If 

Case 1:13-cv-01789-SKO Document 6 Filed 01/03/14 Page 3 of 5
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

Petitioner seeks certiorari from the Supreme Court, he must file his 

petition in that Court.

The Court notes that when the petition was filed, Petitioner 

had pending in this Court another habeas proceeding relating to 

Petitioner’s judgment of conviction, namely, Zane Hubbard v. 

Corcoran State Prison (4B) SHU, case number 1:13-1758-JLT-HC. In 

that proceeding, a first amended petition is presently pending. 

(Id. , doc. 9, 1-7.) Although the petition in the present case 

seeks relief by way of certiorari, the Court notes that if 

Petitioner were to seek in the future habeas relief concerning the 

subject of Petitioner’s pending habeas proceeding in this Court, 

Petitioner should file his documents in the pending habeas action.

III. Certificate of Appealability

Unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of 

appealability, an appeal may not be taken to the Court of Appeals 

from the final order in a habeas proceeding in which the detention 

complained of arises out of process issued by a state court. 28 

U.S.C. ' 2253(c)(1)(A); Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336 

(2003). A certificate of appealability may issue only if the 

applicant makes a substantial showing of the denial of a 

constitutional right. ' 2253(c)(2). Under this standard, a 

petitioner must show that reasonable jurists could debate whether 

the petition should have been resolved in a different manner or that 

the issues presented were adequate to deserve encouragement to 

proceed further. Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. at 336 (quoting 

Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000)). A certificate should 

issue if the Petitioner shows that jurists of reason would find it 

debatable whether (1) the petition states a valid claim of the 

Case 1:13-cv-01789-SKO Document 6 Filed 01/03/14 Page 4 of 5
5

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

denial of a constitutional right, or (2) the district court was 

correct in any procedural ruling. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. at

483-84. 

In determining this issue, a court conducts an overview of the 

claims in the habeas petition, generally assesses their merits, and 

determines whether the resolution was wrong or debatable among 

jurists of reason. Id. An applicant must show more than an absence 

of frivolity or the existence of mere good faith; however, the 

applicant need not show the appeal will succeed. Miller-El v. 

Cockrell, 537 U.S. at 338. 

A district court must issue or deny a certificate of 

appealability when it enters a final order adverse to the applicant. 

Rule 11(a) of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. 

Here, it does not appear that reasonable jurists could debate 

whether the petition should have been resolved in a different 

manner. Petitioner has not made a substantial showing of the denial 

of a constitutional right. Accordingly, the Court will decline to 

issue a certificate of appealability.

IV. Disposition

Base on the foregoing, it is ORDERED that:

1) The petition for writ of habeas corpus is DISMISSED without 

prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction; and

2) The Court DECLILNES to issue a certificate of appealability; 

and

3) The Clerk is DIRECTED to close the action.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 2, 2014 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:13-cv-01789-SKO Document 6 Filed 01/03/14 Page 5 of 5