Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_19-cv-02214/USCOURTS-casd-3_19-cv-02214-0/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 

19cv2214-MMA (MDD) 

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

DELBERT RONDELL GARDNER, 

Petitioner, 

v. 

KEN CLARK, 

Respondent. 

 Case No. 19cv2214-MMA (MDD) 

ORDER (1) CONSTRUING TRUST 

ACCOUNT STATEMENT AS 

MOTION TO PROCEED IN FORMA 

PAUPERIS; (2) GRANTING 

MOTION TO PROCEED IN FORMA 

PAUPERIS; and (3) DISMISSING 

CASE WITHOUT PREJUDICE AND 

WITH LEAVE TO AMEND 

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

Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 

CONSTRUING TRUST ACCOUNT STATEMENT AS A MOTION TO 

PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS AND GRANTING MOTION 

Petitioner has not filed a motion to proceed in forma pauperis, but has submitted a 

trust account statement from the California correctional institution in which he is 

presently confined. The Court CONSTRUES the trust account statement as a motion to 

proceed in forma pauperis. Further, because Petition has $0.00 in his account and 

therefore cannot afford the $5.00 filing fee, the Court GRANTS Petitioner’s application 

to proceed in forma pauperis, and allows Petitioner to prosecute the above-referenced 

Case 3:19-cv-02214-MMA-MDD Document 3 Filed 12/04/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 5
2 

19cv2214-MMA (MDD) 

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

action without being required to prepay fees or costs and without being required to post 

security. The Clerk of the Court shall file the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus without 

prepayment of the filing fee. 

FAILURE TO STATE GROUNDS FOR RELIEF IN PETITION 

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

petition “shall set forth in summary form the facts supporting each of the grounds . . . 

specified [in the petition].” 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). Although Petitioner does not fail to state factual allegations in the Petition, he does 

fail to state any grounds for relief in the Petition. 

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. See Zichko v. Idaho, 247 F.3d 1015, 1020 (9th Cir. 2001). The 

Court finds that the Petition contains allegations without any grounds for relief. This 

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

sense of the Petition and its attachments. 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. 

/ / / 

/ / / 

Case 3:19-cv-02214-MMA-MDD Document 3 Filed 12/04/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 5
3 

19cv2214-MMA (MDD) 

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 ALLEGE EXHAUSTION OF STATE JUDICIAL REMEDIES 

Further, habeas petitioners who wish to challenge either their state court conviction 

or the length of their confinement in state prison, must first exhaust state judicial 

remedies. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b), (c); Granberry v. Greer, 481 U.S. 129, 133–34 (1987). 

Ordinarily, to satisfy the exhaustion requirement, a petitioner must “‘fairly present[]’ his 

federal claim to the highest state court with jurisdiction to consider it, or . . . 

demonstrate[] that no state remedy remains available.” Johnson v. Zenon, 88 F.3d 828, 

829 (9th Cir. 1996) (citations omitted). Moreover, to properly exhaust state court 

remedies a petitioner must allege, in state court, how one or more of his or her federal 

rights have been violated. For example, “[i]f a habeas petitioner wishes to claim that an 

evidentiary ruling at a state court trial denied him [or her] the due process of law 

guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment, he [or she] must say so, not only in federal 

court, but in state court.” See Duncan v. Henry, 513 U.S. 364, 365–66 (1995)(emphasis 

added). 

It is not clear from the Petition that Petitioner has exhausted any claims in the 

California Supreme Court. If Petitioner has raised his claims in the California Supreme 

Court, he must so specify. 

Further, the Court cautions Petitioner that under the Antiterrorism and Effective 

Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA) a one-year period of limitation applies to a petition 

for a writ of habeas corpus by a person in custody pursuant to the judgment of a State 

court. The limitation period runs from the latest of: 

(A) the date on which the judgment became final by the conclusion of direct 

review or the expiration of the time for seeking such review; 

(B) the date on which the impediment to filing an application created by 

State action in violation of the Constitution or laws of the United States is 

removed, if the applicant was prevented from filing by such State action; 

(C) the date on which the constitutional right asserted was initially 

recognized by the Supreme Court, if the right has been newly recognized by 

Case 3:19-cv-02214-MMA-MDD Document 3 Filed 12/04/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 5
4 

19cv2214-MMA (MDD) 

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

the Supreme Court and made retroactively applicable to cases on collateral 

review; or 

(D) the date on which the factual predicate of the claim or claims presented 

could have been discovered through the exercise of due diligence. 

28 U.S.C.A. § 2244(d)(1)(A)–(D) (West Supp. 2002). 

The statute of limitations does not run while a properly filed state habeas corpus 

petition is pending. 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(2); see Nino v. Galaza, 183 F.3d 1003, 1006 

(9th Cir. 1999). But see Artuz v. Bennett, 531 U.S. 4, 8 (2000) (holding that “an 

application is ‘properly filed’ when its delivery and acceptance [by the appropriate court 

officer for placement into the record] are in compliance with the applicable laws and 

rules governing filings.”). However, absent some other basis for tolling, the statute of 

limitations does run while a federal habeas petition is pending. Duncan v. Walker, 533 

U.S. 167, 181–82 (2001). 

Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases provides for summary dismissal 

of a habeas petition “[i]f it plainly appears from the face of the petition and any exhibits 

annexed to it that the petitioner is not entitled to relief in the district court . . . .” Rule 4, 

28 U.S.C. foll. § 2254. Here, it appears plain from the Petition that Petitioner is not 

presently entitled to federal habeas relief because he has not alleged exhaustion of state 

court remedies. 

/ / / 

/ / / 

/ / / 

/ / / 

/ / / 

/ / / 

/ / / 

/ / / 

/ / / 

Case 3:19-cv-02214-MMA-MDD Document 3 Filed 12/04/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 5
5 

19cv2214-MMA (MDD) 

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

CONCLUSION 

For the foregoing reasons, the Court DISMISSES the Petition without prejudice 

and with leave to amend. To have this case reopened, Petitioner must, no later than 

February 10, 2020, filed a First Amended Petition that cures the pleading deficiencies 

outlined in this Order. The Clerk of Court is directed to mail Petitioner a blank First 

Amended Petition form together with a copy of this Order. 

 IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: December 4, 2019 

_____________________________

 Hon. Michael M. Anello 

United States District Judge 

Case 3:19-cv-02214-MMA-MDD Document 3 Filed 12/04/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 5 of 5