Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_19-cv-00895/USCOURTS-casd-3_19-cv-00895-0/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

19cv0895-CAB (RBB)

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

JOSEPH GEORGE,

Petitioner,

v.

M. SPEARMEN, Warden, et al.,

Respondents.

Case No.: 19cv0895-CAB (RBB)

ORDER DISMISSING CASE 

WITHOUT PREJUDICE

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

Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. (ECF No. 1.) Petitioner has failed to pay the $5.00 

filing fee or file an application to proceed in forma pauperis. The Petition is subject to 

dismissal without prejudice for failure to satisfy the filing fee requirement and failure to 

set forth grounds for relief in the body of the Petition.

FILING FEE REQUIREMENT

Because this Court cannot proceed until Petitioner has either paid the $5.00 filing 

fee or qualified to proceed in forma pauperis, the Court DISMISSES the case without 

prejudice. See Rule 3(a), 28 U.S.C. foll. § 2254. If Petitioner wishes to proceed with this 

case, he must submit, no later than July 15, 2019, a copy of this Order with the $5.00 fee 

or with adequate proof of his inability to pay the fee. 

Case 3:19-cv-00895-CAB-RBB Document 3 Filed 05/14/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 3
2

19cv0895-CAB (RBB)

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 GROUNDS FOR RELIEF IN PETITION

In addition, Rule 2(c) of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases states that the 

petition must “specify all grounds for relief available to the petitioner [and] state the facts 

supporting each ground.” Rule 2(c), 28 U.S.C. foll. § 2254. See also Boehme v. Maxwell, 

423 F.2d 1056, 1058 (9th Cir. 1970) (trial court’s dismissal of federal habeas proceeding 

affirmed where petitioner made conclusory allegations instead of factual allegations 

showing that he was entitled to relief). Here, Petitioner has violated Rule 2(c). He has 

included numerous attachments to the Petition which appear to be an effort to indicate what 

claims he is presenting, but he has left blank the area of the Petition for where he is required 

to list his ground for relief. (See ECF No. 1 at 4-5.)

While courts should liberally interpret pro se pleadings with leniency and 

understanding, this should not place on the reviewing court the entire onus of ferreting out 

grounds for relief. Cf. Burkey v. Deeds, 824 F. Supp. 190, 193 (D. Nev. 1993) (finding 

that courts do not have entire onus of creating federal claim for petitioner). The Court 

would have to engage in a tenuous analysis in order to attempt to identify and make sense 

of the Petition and its attachements. In order to satisfy Rule 2(c), Petitioner must point to 

a “real possibility of constitutional error.” Cf. Blackledge v. Allison, 431 U.S. 63, 75 n.7 

(1977) (internal quotation marks omitted). Facts must be stated, in the petition, with 

sufficient detail to enable the Court to determine, from the face of the petition, whether 

further habeas corpus review is warranted. Adams v. Armontrout, 897 F.2d 332, 334 (8th 

Cir. 1990). Moreover, the allegations should be sufficiently specific to permit the 

respondent to assert appropriate objections and defenses. Harris v. Allen, 739 F. Supp. 

564, 565 (W.D. Okla. 1989). Here, the lack of grounds for relief in the Petition prevents 

the Respondent from being able to assert appropriate objections and defenses.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Based on the foregoing, the Court DISMISSES the Petition for a Writ of Habeas 

Corpus without prejudice for failure to satisfy the filing fee requirement and failure to state 

grounds for relief in the Petition. If Petitioner wishes to proceed with this action he must, 

Case 3:19-cv-00895-CAB-RBB Document 3 Filed 05/14/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 3
3

19cv0895-CAB (RBB)

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

on or before July 15, 2019, either pay the filing fee or submit a motion to proceed in forma 

pauperis and file First Amended Petition which presents the grounds for relief within the 

body of the Petition. The Clerk of Court shall send Petitioner a blank Southern District of 

California amended petition form and a blank Southern District of California in forma 

pauperis application along with a copy of this Order. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 14, 2019

Case 3:19-cv-00895-CAB-RBB Document 3 Filed 05/14/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 3