Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-00971/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-00971-1/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

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DONALD ROOTS,

Petitioner,

v.

ELVIN VALENZUELA,

Respondent.

No. 2:15-cv-0971 WBS KJN P

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed three petitions for a writ of habeas 

corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. (See ECF Nos. 1, 8, 10.) Petitioner filed his second and 

third habeas petitions on his own accord, rather than in response to a court order. For the reasons 

set forth below, the undersigned recommends that the habeas petitions be dismissed in their 

entirety.

Any grounds for habeas relief alleged in the thirty-nine pages of the first petition are 

largely indecipherable. (See ECF No. 1.) The first petition consists largely of passages such as, 

“Here is the order to grant that relief, if our society keeps moving forward pretending that we 

have a constitution that really works, but in fact is only as real as the paper money we trade with 

////

////

////

Case 2:15-cv-00971-WBS-KJN Document 12 Filed 09/02/15 Page 1 of 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

2

nothing backing it, then at least allow us freedom and a way to utilize our SS# and our word as 

we sign, to pay the national debt, it is the reason we are killed and falsely accused Right?!”1(sic) 

(ECF No. 1 at 3.) The following paragraph comes closest to articulating a potential basis for 

federal habeas relief:

The fact is: the strike law did not apply to cases before Nov. 8, 

1994. The other fact is: the 1st Degree Burglary in 5/3/93 is the 

basis for the strike enhancements. It is the only strikeable offence 

on record but in order for it to be a strikeable offence it had to meet 

the date requirement – which it does NOT and the strike law under 

§ 667.5(c)(21) where the resident had to be in the house – at the 

time of the burglary charged – WHICH IT DOES NOT, the case 

was overcharged and no other enhancements or STRIKES should 

hold [petitioner] ROOTS, see exhibit[s] Penal Code § 667.5(c)(21), 

Probation Report page 7, line 3-11, line 18 is referring to line 3-

11’s strike being the prior strike because you can’t get a strike by 

itself for line 17 “Disposition: Possession conviction by itself.” As 

Counselor Reynolds suggested while yelling at Roots to “LOOK 

AT THE COMPUTER SCREEN” over and over, trying to make 

Roots agree with him. MOST OF ROOTS other cases are 

Dismissed PROOF of whatever professional has said “Fishing for 

Prey.” FURTHERMORE: ROOTS DOES NOT qualify for 85% 

and should be discharged!! NOW!

(sic) (ECF No. 1 at 14.) Despite these assertions, no constitutional issue is presented in this 

paragraph. Legislation enacting California’s three strikes law became effective on March 7, 

1994. Ewing v. California, 538 U.S. 11, 15 (2003). The related Proposition 184 was approved by 

voters on November 8, 1994. Id. It is well-settled that a judgment of conviction on a felony 

entered prior to the enactment of the three strikes laws can qualify as a strike. See Brown v. 

Mayle, 293 F.3d 1019, 1040 (9th Cir. 2002) (finding constitutional the application of the three

strikes law where prior offenses were committed and judgments of conviction entered before the 

law’s enactment), vacated on other grounds, Mayle v. Brown, 538 U.S. 901 (2003). Accordingly, 

the undersigned finds that the first petition fails to state a basis for federal habeas relief.

The second petition, which is twelve pages long, is similarly difficult to decipher. There 

are a handful of sentences that – construed broadly in favor of the petitioner – might suggest a 

 

1

The first petition also includes documents apparently filed by petitioner in a previous federal 

habeas case, Roots v. Cate, no. 2:12-cv-02903-LKK-KJN (E.D. Cal.), in which petitioner 

challenged a 2010 conviction. That case was dismissed due to plaintiff’s failure to exhaust state 

remedies prior to filing his federal habeas petition.

Case 2:15-cv-00971-WBS-KJN Document 12 Filed 09/02/15 Page 2 of 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

3

claim of ineffective assistance of counsel. For example, petitioner writes, “Just the fact counsel 

failed to refused to move to have the case, now in question, dismissed on the fact that the witness 

changed her statement . . . is an outright denial of counsel . . . .” (sic) (ECF No. 8 at 5.) But

petitioner provides no additional information regarding the case or conviction he is challenging, 

and fails to identify the witness he is challenging. As with the first petition, the majority of the 

second petition consists of sentences such as, “In fact [petitioner] Roots became a ‘Slave’ in 

violation of his 13th Amendment Right to the U.S. Constitution against ‘Slavery’ and involuntary 

servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, 

shall exist within the United States.” (Id.) Accordingly, the undersigned finds that the second 

petition also fails to state a basis for federal habeas relief.

The third petition, which is seventeen pages long, consists largely of allegations that 

petitioner’s fourteen-year-old daughter was physically abused by her mother, and then placed by 

child protective services with petitioner’s mother, who had abused petitioner when he was a child. 

(See ECF No. 10.) While the court sympathizes with petitioner’s worries about his daughter’s 

safety, federal court is not a proper venue to address these concerns, nor is a habeas petition the 

proper vehicle for seeking assistance for a child in danger. If petitioner wishes, he may contact 

the child protective services office which serves the jurisdiction where his daughter resides in 

order to express his concerns.

Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts 

provides in pertinent part:

The clerk must promptly forward the petition to a judge under the 

court’s assignment procedure, and the judge must promptly 

examine it. If it plainly appears from the petition and any attached 

exhibits that the petitioner is not entitled to relief in the district 

court, the judge must dismiss the petition and direct the clerk to 

notify the petitioner.

Rule 4, 28 U.S.C. foll. § 2254. Rule 2 further requires that a habeas petition “(1) specify all the 

grounds for relief available to the petitioner [and] (2) state the facts supporting each ground.” 

Rule 2, 28 U.S.C. foll. § 2254. “Notice pleading is not sufficient; rather, the petition must state 

Case 2:15-cv-00971-WBS-KJN Document 12 Filed 09/02/15 Page 3 of 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

4

facts that point to a real possibility of constitutional error.” O’Bremski v. Maass, 915 F. 2d 418, 

420 (9th Cir. 1990) (internal quotations omitted). Allegations in a petition that are vague, 

conclusory, or palpably incredible are subject to summary dismissal. Hendricks v. Vasquez, 908 

F.2d 490, 491 (9th Cir. 1990).

In the instant case, over the course of three purported habeas petitions, petitioner has 

provided only a handful of allegations that even remotely resemble grounds for habeas relief. 

The allegations in question are vague at best. Moreover, no facts are provided that support the 

grounds raised or that otherwise “point to a real possibility of constitutional error.” O’Bremski, 

915 F.2d at 420. Ultimately, despite having made three attempts to do so, petitioner has entirely 

failed to articulate grounds for federal habeas relief. It is therefore recommended that the habeas 

petitions be dismissed with prejudice.

In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that the petitions for 

writ of habeas corpus filed in this matter (ECF No. 1, 8, 10) be dismissed with prejudice for 

failure to state a basis for federal habeas relief.

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 

assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen days 

after being served with these findings and recommendations, petitioner 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 Recommendations.” Petitioner is 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 (9th Cir. 1991).

Dated: September 2, 2015

JM /root0971.101a+dism

Case 2:15-cv-00971-WBS-KJN Document 12 Filed 09/02/15 Page 4 of 4