Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_08-cv-00268/USCOURTS-cand-3_08-cv-00268-0/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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ADAM ANTHONY VASQUEZ,

Petitioner,

v.

BEN CURRY, warden,

Respondent. /

No. C 08-268 SI (pr)

ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH

LEAVE TO AMEND

INTRODUCTION

Adam Anthony Vasquez, an inmate at the Correctional Training Facility in Soledad, filed

this pro se action seeking a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. His petition is

now before the court for review pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §2243 and Rule 4 of the Rules Governing

Section 2254 Cases. His in forma pauperis application also is before the court for consideration.

BACKGROUND

Vasquez reports in his petition that he was convicted in the Los Angeles County Superior

Court of second degree murder and was sentenced in 1991 to a term of 15 years to life in prison.

His petition does not challenge his conviction but instead challenges a January 25, 2007 decision

by the Board of Parole Hearings ("BPH") that found him not suitable for parole. Vasquez filed

unsuccessful habeas petitions in state court before filing this action.

Case 3:08-cv-00268-SI Document 3 Filed 04/21/08 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

1

In the place where the claims are supposed to be listed (i.e., page 6 of the form petition),

Vasquez wrote "please see attached paperwork." In addition to several exhibits, there is a 37-

page attachment that apparently is the explanation of his claims. 

2

DISCUSSION

This 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). A

district court considering an application for a writ of habeas corpus 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. 

Rule 2(c) of the Rules Governing Habeas Corpus cases requires the petitioner to “specify

all the grounds for relief available to [him]” and to “state the facts supporting each ground.” 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. See Mayle v. Felix, 545 U.S. 644, 655-56

(2005) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 2253). 

The legal claims in the petition are not adequately pled.1

 Even though Vasquez has

identified federal constitutional rights (i.e., the rights to due process and equal protection), the

contours of the alleged violations of those rights are not understandable. This court can see that

there is a "some evidence" claim, i.e., a claim that there was not some evidence to support the

parole board's denial of parole. What this court is unable to do is to understand what other

claims Vasquez is trying to allege. For example, he alleges that his rights "to due process and

equal protection were violated when respondents utilized a lesser standard of legal proof

requiring evidence with some indicia of reliability to find that petitioner is unsuitable to parole

and is therefore an unreasonable risk." Petition attachment, fifteenth page. One must guess what

Case 3:08-cv-00268-SI Document 3 Filed 04/21/08 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

3

"respondents" Vasquez is referring to (e.g., the warden (who is the nominal respondent), the

BPH, or a state court) and then one must guess what the actor actually did. The contours of the

equal protection claims are even murkier. Where, as here, the court cannot understand enough

of a claim to even describe it, the court will not require respondent to frame an answer to it. 

Vasquez must file an amended petition in which he clearly lists each and every federal

constitutional claim he wishes to present. For each claim, he must identify the particular federal

constitutional right that was violated and explain what happened (or failed to happen) at his

parole hearing on January 25, 2007 that caused the violation of that federal constitutional right.

In his amended petition, Vasquez should not include any claims for violations of state law

or regulations. Whether there were violations of state procedural laws is largely beside the point

here because a federal habeas court cannot grant relief based on a violation of state law.

See Estelle v. McGuire, 502 U.S. 62, 68 (1991); Walters v. Maass, 45 F.3d 1355, 1357 (9th Cir.

1995). Also, extended discussion of state court cases generally is unhelpful because this court's

focus is on the federal constitutional claim(s) and not on state law.

CONCLUSION 

For the foregoing reasons, the petition is dismissed with leave to amend. Vasquez must

file an amended petition no later than May 30, 2008. The legal discussion in the amended

petition must not exceed 25 pages in length. The amended petition also must be paginated, i.e.,

be numbered on each page and the numbers running in ascending order, such that the first page

has a "1" written on the bottom and the second page has a "2" written on the bottom and so forth.

Petitioner's in forma pauperis application is DENIED as unnecessary because he paid the

filing fee. (Docket # 2.) 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: April 21, 2008 

 SUSAN ILLSTON

United States District Judge

Case 3:08-cv-00268-SI Document 3 Filed 04/21/08 Page 3 of 3