Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-01818/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-01818-0/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

U.S. District Court

 E. D. California cd 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

KENNETH WAYNE HOWARD, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

v. )

)

)

ROSEANNE CAMPBELL, Warden, )

)

Respondent. )

 )

1:06-CV-01818 OWW LJO HC

ORDER DISMISSING PETITION WITH 

LEAVE TO FILE AMENDED PETITION

ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT

TO PROVIDE BLANK FORM PETITION TO

PETITIONER

Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas corpus

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. This action has been referred to this Court pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Local Rule 72-302.

On December 13, 2006, Petitioner filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus in this Court. 

DISCUSSION

A. Procedural Grounds for Summary Dismissal

Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases provides in pertinent part:

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. 

The Advisory Committee Notes to Rule 8 indicate that the court may dismiss a petition for writ of

Case 1:06-cv-01818-JMD Document 6 Filed 01/30/07 Page 1 of 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

U.S. District Court

 E. D. California cd 2

habeas corpus, either on its own motion under Rule 4, pursuant to the respondent’s motion to

dismiss, or after an answer to the petition has been filed. 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 (9 Cir. 1971). th

B. Failure to State a Discernable Claim

Petitioner must state his claim with sufficient specificity. See Hendricks v. Vasquez 908 F.2d

at 491-92; Wacht v. Cardwell, 604 F.2d 1245, 1246-47 (9th Cir.1979). Rule 2(c) of the Rules

Governing Section 2254 Cases (emphasis added) states:

The petition must:

(1) specify all the grounds for relief available to the petitioner;

(2) state the facts supporting each ground;

(3) state the relief requested;

(4) be printed, typewritten, or legibly handwritten; and

(5) be signed under penalty of perjury by the petitioner or by a person authorized to

sign it for the petitioner under 28 U.S.C. § 2242.

The instant petition does not present any grounds for relief. Petitioner does attach copies of

various state court rulings and pleadings; however, it is not the province of a federal habeas court to

conduct an independent review of Petitioner’s state court proceedings to determine what federal

claims Petitioner seeks to raise; the responsibility to assert a claim for relief unquestionably belongs

to the petitioner. See Adams v. Armontrout, 897 F.2d 332,333 (8th Cir. 1990) ("We do not believe

that 28 U.S.C. § 2254 or the Section 2254 Rules require the federal courts to review the entire state

record of habeas corpus petitioners to ascertain whether facts exist which support relief."); Bernier v.

Moore, 441 F.2d 395, 396 (1st Cir.1971) ("Habeas corpus is a special proceeding to right wrongs,

not a routine procedure to search for them, nor a means of requiring the federal courts to review, as a

matter of course, state proceedings."); Williams v. Kullman, 772 F.2d 1048, 1051 (2d Cir.1983)

("Despite our firm conviction that the pleading requirements in habeas corpus proceedings should

not be overly technical and stringent, it would be unwise to saddle district judges with the burden of

reading through voluminous records and transcripts in every case."). Petitioner’s attachment of state

court pleadings and rulings does not comport with the requirements of Rule 2(c). 

Therefore, the instant petition must be dismissed. However, Petitioner will be given an

opportunity to file a first amended petition to cure the deficiencies. Petitioner is advised that failure

Case 1:06-cv-01818-JMD Document 6 Filed 01/30/07 Page 2 of 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

U.S. District Court

 E. D. California cd 3

to file a petition in compliance with this order within the allotted time will result in a

recommendation that the petition be dismissed and the action be terminated. Petitioner is advised

that the amended petition should be titled “First Amended Petition” and must reference the instant

case number.

ORDER

Accordingly, the petition for writ of habeas corpus is hereby DISMISSED. Petitioner is

GRANTED thirty (30) days from the date of service of this order to file an amended petition in

compliance with this order. The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to send Petitioner a form petition

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 29, 2007 /s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill 

b9ed48 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-01818-JMD Document 6 Filed 01/30/07 Page 3 of 3