Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_08-cv-00867/USCOURTS-cand-5_08-cv-00867-0/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

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

Order of Dismissal with Leave to Amend

P:\PRO-SE\SJ.JF\HC.08\Partida867_dwlta.wpd 1

NOT FOR CITATION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

FRANCISCO PARTIDA,

Petitioner,

 vs.

LELAND McEWEN, Warden,

Respondent. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C 08-00867 JF (PR)

ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH

LEAVE TO AMEND

Petitioner, a state prisoner at Calipatria State Prison proceeding pro se, seeks a writ

of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. On March 31, 2008, the Court dismissed

the action without prejudice for Petitioner’s failure to pay the filing fee. (Docket No. 4.) 

Subsequently, the Court granted Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration, reopened the

action, and granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis. (Docket No. 11.) For the reasons

stated below, the Court will dismiss the petition with leave to amend. 

BACKGROUND

According to the petition, Petitioner was found guilty by a jury in San Francisco

County Superior Court of burglary in the first degree, sexual battery and false

imprisonment. (Pet. at 2.) Petitioner was sentenced on March 17, 2006, to 37 years and 8

Case 5:08-cv-00867-JF Document 16 Filed 04/21/10 Page 1 of 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

Order of Dismissal with Leave to Amend

P:\PRO-SE\SJ.JF\HC.08\Partida867_dwlta.wpd 2

months to life in state prison. (Id.) Petitioner appealed his sentence, and the California

Supreme Court denied the petition for review in 2007. (Id. at 3.)

Petitioner filed the instant federal habeas petition on February 8, 2008.

DISCUSSION

A. Standard of Review

A district court may entertain a petition for 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); Rose v. Hodges, 423 U.S. 19, 21 (1975). 

A district court shall “award the writ or issue an order directing the respondent to

show cause why the writ should not be granted, unless it appears from the application that

the applicant or person detained is not entitled thereto.” 28 U.S.C. § 2243. 

B. Petitioner’s Claims

The Court has reviewed the petition and is unable to determine Petitioner’s claims. 

In the attachments to the form petition, Petitioner makes citations to law regarding his

right to counsel and conflicts of interest arising from multiple representation by defense

counsel of co-defendants, as well as references to a change of venue motion and the right

to an impartial jury. Petitioner includes several pages describing the relationship between

an attorney and his client. Petitioner also attaches several handwritten pages which

appear to be in Spanish. Lastly, Petitioner states that false evidence may be a basis for

granting a writ of habeas corpus. Petitioner states no grounds for relief or makes any

specific factual allegations showing that his constitutional rights were violated in the

course of his state conviction. 

Federal courts have a duty to construe pro se petitions for writs of habeas corpus

liberally. Zichko v. Idaho, 247 F.3d 1015, 1020 (9th Cir. 2001). However, the Court

cannot liberally construe claims where no specific factual allegations have been made. In

ordinary civil proceedings, the governing rule, Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil

Case 5:08-cv-00867-JF Document 16 Filed 04/21/10 Page 2 of 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

Order of Dismissal with Leave to Amend

P:\PRO-SE\SJ.JF\HC.08\Partida867_dwlta.wpd 3

Procedure, requires only “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the

pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). Rule 2(c) of the Rules Governing

Habeas Corpus cases requires a more detailed statement. The habeas rule instructs the

petitioner to “specify all the grounds for relief available to [him]” and to “state the facts

supporting each ground.” Rule 2(c), Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United

States District Courts, 28 U.S.C. foll. § 2254; see also Hendricks v. Vasquez, 908 F.2d

490, 491-92 (9th Cir. 1990) (habeas petitioner must state his claims with sufficient

specificity); Wacht v. Cardwell, 604 F.2d 1245, 1246-47 (9th Cir. 1979) (same). A prime

purpose of Rule 2(c)’s demand that habeas petitioners plead with particularity is to assist

the district court in determining whether the state should be ordered to show cause why

the writ should not be granted. Mayle v. Felix, 545 U.S. 644, 655-56 (2005) (citing 28

U.S.C. § 2253). Conclusory allegations in a habeas petition fail to state a claim and do

not suffice to shift the burden to the state to answer an order to show cause. See Allard v.

Nelson, 423 F.2d 1216, 1217 (9th Cir. 1970). However, where the petition is deficient

the petitioner should be given leave to amend. See Jarvis v. Nelson, 440 F.2d 13, 14 (9th

Cir. 1971); Ballard v. Nelson, 423 F.2d 71, 73 (9th Cir. 1970). Accordingly, the petition

is DISMISSED with leave to amend to correct the deficiencies discussed above. 

Furthermore, Petitioner is advised that the entire petition must be written in English and

that anything written in Spanish will be disregarded. 

CONCLUSION 

In light of the foregoing, the Court hereby orders as follows:

1. The petition is hereby DISMISSED WITH LEAVE TO AMEND. Within

thirty (30) days of the date this order is filed, Petitioner must file an amended petition

using this Court’s form for habeas petitions. The amended petition must include the

caption and civil case number used in this order, No. C 08-00867 JF (PR), as well as the

words AMENDED PETITION on the first page. Petitioner may not incorporate material

from the original petition by reference.

Case 5:08-cv-00867-JF Document 16 Filed 04/21/10 Page 3 of 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

Order of Dismissal with Leave to Amend

P:\PRO-SE\SJ.JF\HC.08\Partida867_dwlta.wpd 4

Failure to file an amended petition in accordance with this order in the time

provided shall result in the dismissal of this action without prejudice.

The Clerk of the Court shall replace “Gente del Estado de California” with Warden

Leland McEwen as Respondent in this action. 

The Clerk shall include two copies of this court’s form petition with a copy of this

order to Petitioner. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: ____________________ JEREMY FOGEL 

United States District Judge

4/16/10

Case 5:08-cv-00867-JF Document 16 Filed 04/21/10 Page 4 of 5
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

FRANCISCO PARTIDA,

Petitioner,

 v.

LELAND McEWAN, Warden,

Respondent. /

Case Number: CV08-00867 JF 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am an employee in the Office of the Clerk, U.S. District

Court, Northern District of California.

That on , I SERVED a true and correct copy(ies) of the

attached, by placing said copy(ies) in a postage paid envelope addressed to the person(s)

hereinafter listed, by depositing said envelope in the U.S. Mail, or by placing said copy(ies) into

an inter-office delivery receptacle located in the Clerk's office.

Francisco Partida F22180

Calipatria State Prison

7018 Blair Road

P.O. Bax 5007

Calipatria, CA 92233

Dated: 

Richard W. Wieking, Clerk

4/21/10

4/21/10

Case 5:08-cv-00867-JF Document 16 Filed 04/21/10 Page 5 of 5