Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00222/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00222-2/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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

KARI MARIE COLE, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

)

v. )

)

DEBORAH L. PATRICK, )

)

Respondents. )

 ___________________________________)

1:06-cv-00222-LJO-TAG HC

ORDER REQUIRING PETITIONER TO FILE

AMENDED PETITION

ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT

TO SEND PETITIONER BLANK FORM

PETITION

Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with a petition for writ

of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 

Petitioner filed her original Petition on February 3, 2006. (Doc. 1). On May 23, 2007, before

the Court had conducted an initial screening of the original petition, and before a responsive pleading

had been filed, Petitioner filed an amended petition. (Doc. 10). The amended petition appears to

make but a single claim for relief. However, the claim is so ambiguously and poorly drafted, that it

is difficult for the Court to determine the precise nature of her claim. It appears that Petitioner is

contending that she is innocent of the crime for which she was convicted and that the evidence

suggests that another individual or individuals committed the offense and conspired to have

Petitioner arrested for the crime. The issue, as framed by Petitioner, is part question and answer, in

which Petitioner provides both the questions and the answers, and part rambling commentary about

the evidence and her conviction. From this, the Court is unable to determine that a federal question

has been raised regarding Petitioner’s state court conviction. Accordingly, the Court will afford

Petitioner one last opportunity to amend her petition to state a federal claim.

Case 1:06-cv-00222-LJO-TAG Document 11 Filed 12/17/07 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

DISCUSSION

Rule 4 of the Rules Governing § 2254 Cases requires the Court to make a preliminary review

of each petition for writ of habeas corpus. The Court must dismiss a petition "[i]f it plainly appears

from the face of the petition . . . that the petitioner is not entitled to relief." Rule 4 of the Rules

Governing § 2254 Cases; Hendricks v. Vasquez, 908 F.2d 490 (9th Cir.1990). Otherwise, the Court

will order Respondent to respond to the petition. Rule 5 of the Rules Governing § 2254 Cases. 

The basic scope of habeas corpus is prescribed by statute. Subsection (c) of Section 2241 of

Title 28 of the United States Code provides that habeas corpus shall not extend to a prisoner unless

he is “in custody in violation of the Constitution.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a) states that the federal courts

shall entertain a petition for writ of habeas corpus only on the ground that the petitioner “is in

custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States. See also, Rule 1 to

the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Court. The Supreme Court has

held that “the essence of habeas corpus is an attack by a person in custody upon the legality of that

custody . . .” Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 484 (1973). Furthermore, in order to succeed in a

petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, Petitioner must demonstrate that the adjudication of her claim

in state court resulted in a decision that was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of,

clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States; or resulted

in a decision that was based on an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence

presented in the State court proceeding. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1), (2). 

Petitioner does not allege a violation of the Constitution or federal law, nor does she argue

that she is in custody in violation of the Constitution or federal law. Petitioner does not allege that

the adjudication of her claims in state court “resulted in a decision that was contrary to, or involved

an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, . . . or resulted in a decision that was

based on an unreasonable determination of the facts . . . .” 28 U.S.C. § 2254. At present, Petitioner

raises only a state law claim, i.e., that the jury should not have convicted her based on the evidence,

and, generally, issues of state law are not cognizable on federal habeas review. Estelle v. McGuire,

502 U.S. 62, 67 (1991)(“We have stated many times that ‘federal habeas corpus relief does not lie

for errors of state law.’”) (quoting Lewis v. Jeffers, 497 U.S. 764, 780 (1990)); Gilmore v. Taylor,

Case 1:06-cv-00222-LJO-TAG Document 11 Filed 12/17/07 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

508 U.S. 333, 348-349 (1993)(O’Connor, J., concurring)(“mere error of state law, one that does not

rise to the level of a constitutional violation, may not be corrected on federal habeas”). Moreover,

"[c]onclusory allegations which are not supported by a statement of specific facts do not warrant

habeas relief." James v. Borg, 24 F.3d 20, 29 (9th Cir.1994). 

Indeed, federal courts are bound by state court rulings on questions of state law. Oxborrow v.

Eikenberry, 877 F.2d 1395, 1399 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 942 (1989). Further, “the

availability of a claim under state law does not of itself establish that a claim was available under the

United States Constitution.” Sawyer v. Smith, 497 U.S. 227, 239 (1990)(quoting Dugger v. Adams,

489 U.S. 401, 409 (1989). Tinsley v. Borg, 895 F.2d 520, 530 (9th Cir.1990), cert. denied, 498 U.S.

1091 (1991) (“incorrect” evidentiary rulings are not the basis for federal habeas relief).

ORDER

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:

1. That Petitioner is granted thirty (30) days from the date of service of this order to file

an amended petition. Petitioner is advised that the amended petition should be clearly

entitled “Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus.” Petitioner is advised that

the petition must set forth her claim(s) clearly, including all the facts and arguments

in support of said claim(s). With respect to any claims raised in an amended petition,

Petitioner must have presented those claims, either in her original state court appeal

or through a subsequent state habeas corpus petition, to the California Supreme Court

prior to raising them in this Court. It is Petitioner’s responsibility to advise the Court

in her amended petition of the dates when the state courts ruled on the issues

Petitioner raised. The Court will not consider the original petition. Petitioner is

reminded that each claim must state a cognizable federal claim;

2. The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to send Petitioner a blank form petition for state

prisoners filing pursuant to § 2254.

///

///

Case 1:06-cv-00222-LJO-TAG Document 11 Filed 12/17/07 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

Petitioner is forewarned that failure to follow this order will result in a recommendation for

dismissal of the petition pursuant to Local Rule 11-110.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 14, 2007 /s/ Theresa A. Goldner 

j6eb3d UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

Case 1:06-cv-00222-LJO-TAG Document 11 Filed 12/17/07 Page 4 of 4