Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_05-cv-04446/USCOURTS-cand-4_05-cv-04446-0/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)

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

NOT FOR CITATION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RODNEY BLACH,

Petitioner,

 vs.

JOHN DOVEY, Director of Adult

Institutions, CDCR,

Respondent. /

No. C 05-4446 PJH (PR)

ORDER EXTENDING TIME

TO AMEND; RULINGS

This is a habeas case filed pro se by a state prisoner. In the initial review order the

court dismissed the petition with leave to amend. In that order the court stated: 

The petition is a handwritten document not on the court’s form for

habeas petitions. It is labeled a “[n]ominal” petition, apparently because it is

not the real petition, but rather a place-holder for an amended petition

petitioner hopes to file later. It includes two “motions to the court” and eight

“ancillary” motions. Petitioner refers to it as presenting a “sampling” of the

issues he ultimately will raise. He lists twelve claims, some with subparts. 

Although some of these claims clearly are cognizable, for instance ineffective

assistance of counsel claims, most do not allege grounds for federal habeas

relief.

A person in custody pursuant to the judgment of a state court can

obtain a federal writ of habeas corpus 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). In other words, a writ of habeas corpus is available under §

2254(a) "only on the basis of some transgression of federal law binding on the

state courts." Middleton v. Cupp, 768 F.2d 1083, 1085 (9th Cir. 1985) (citing

Engle v. Isaac, 456 U.S. 107, 119 (1982)), cert. denied, 478 U.S. 1021

(1986). It is unavailable for violations of state law or for alleged error in the

interpretation or application of state law. See Estelle v. McGuire, 502 U.S.

62, 67-68 (1991). That is, a federal habeas petitioner must allege, and at

some point prove, that his or her conviction was obtained in violation of

federal law, usually the Constitution. [Footnote omitted] Petitioner should also

note that Herrera v. Collins, 506 U.S. 390, 400 (1993), made it clear that there

can be no federal habeas relief based solely on a petitioner's actual

innocence of the crime. See Coley v. Gonzalez, 55 F.3d 1385, 1387 (9th Cir.

1995). Thus, his contention that he is not the guilty party, and that various

other people and groups are, is not grounds for federal habeas relief. 

Case 4:05-cv-04446-PJH Document 36 Filed 03/16/07 Page 1 of 4
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

Because the present petition omits necessary information, is

incomplete, and does not contain a simple, clear list of the constitutional

claims petitioner wishes to raise, it will be dismissed with leave to amend on

the court’s form. If petitioner chooses to amend he may use additional sheets

of paper to set out claims beyond those which will fit on the form, but is

advised to omit unnecessary argument which might be better presented in a

memorandum in support of the petition or in a traverse, and to focus on the

federal legal claims he wishes to be considered, rather than extensive

discussion of his factual assertions. [Footnote omitted] Because claims

cannot be raised in federal court unless they have first been raised to the

highest state court available in explicitly federal terms, it should not be difficult

for petitioner to list the federal issues he has already presented to the state

supreme court. 

Plaintiff has filed several motions which are now before the court for ruling.

 1. Motion for appointment of counsel

The Sixth Amendment's right to counsel does not apply in habeas corpus actions. 

Knaubert v. Goldsmith, 791 F.2d 722, 728 (9th Cir. 1986). However, 18 U.S.C. §

3006A(a)(2)(B) authorizes appointment of counsel to represent a habeas petitioner

whenever "the court determines that the interests of justice so require and such person is

financially unable to obtain representation." 

Petitioner obviously is literate and capable of presenting his claims, if he will narrow

them down and focus on the essentials of how he contends his rights were violated. As to

complexity, at this stage of the case it is impossible determine if the issues are complex,

because petitioner still has not filed an amended petition, but it appears the issues are

relatively straightforward. And in any case, petitioner has to have exhausted the issues in

state court before he comes here, so his state court papers will assist him in presenting the

issues here. The motion will be denied.

2. Motions for extension of time to file amendment

Petitioner has filed several motions asking for extensions. An extension of time to

amend will be granted, but this case cannot be allowed to linger indefinitely without

resolution. He should treat the present extension as a firm deadline, or if he has issues

which are not exhausted in state court, he may ask for a stay while he exhausts. If he asks

for a stay, he must show good cause for his failure to exhaust earlier, that the proposed

issues are "potentially meritorious," and that he is not engaging in "dilatory litigation tactics." 

Case 4:05-cv-04446-PJH Document 36 Filed 03/16/07 Page 2 of 4
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

See Rhines v. Weber, 544 U.S. 269, 277 (2005).

3. Motions for injunctive relief

Petitioner included a motion for an order requiring the return of certain legal papers

which had been stored by the prison, or that he be allowed access to them. The court

ordered respondent to answer that motion, which he has. 

The Ninth Circuit has held that requests for injunctive relief may be satisfied by

either of two sets of criteria. The "traditional" test requires the movants to: (1) establish a

strong likelihood of success on the merits; (2) show the possibility of irreparable injury to

the plaintiff if the preliminary relief is not granted; (3) show a balance of hardships favoring

the movants; and (4) show that granting the injunction favors the public interest. See Los

Angeles Memorial Coliseum Comm'n v. Nat'l Football League, 634 F.2d 1197, 1200 (9th

Cir. 1980). 

The "alternative" test requires that the movants demonstrate either a combination of

probable success on the merits and the possibility of irreparable injury, or that serious

questions are raised and the balance of hardships tips sharply in their favor. See

Bernhardt v. Los Angeles County, 339 F.3d 920, 925 (9th Cir. 2003). If the public interest

may be affected by the proposed injunction, it should also be factored into the analysis. 

See Bernhardt. 339 F.3d at 925. The Ninth Circuit has explained that these two alternatives

represent two points on a sliding scale in which the required degree of irreparable harm

increases as the probability of success decreases. See Diamontiney, 918 F.2d at 795. 

At the very least, however, the moving party must show a fair chance of success on

the merits. See Armstrong v. Mazurek, 94 F.3d 566, 567 (9th Cir. 1996). This petitioner

has completely failed to do. His filings so far have been so extensive and diffuse as to be

insufficient to carry his burden to show a chance of success on the merits. The motions for

injunctive relief will be denied.

4. Motion regarding missing submission

In what he labels "Investigative/Remedial Motions, Re: missing 01 Aug 06

Submission," petitioner contends that a motion that he mailed on August 1, 2006, did not

Case 4:05-cv-04446-PJH Document 36 Filed 03/16/07 Page 3 of 4
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

reach the file. He has provided a copy which he says he obtained from the Attorney

General's office, which evidently received its service copy. The missing motion was a

notice of change of address and a request for an extension of time to reply to the

respondent's opposition to his motion for injunctive relief. As petitioner's change of address

has been noted on the docket, and his other motion for an extension of time to reply will be

granted and the reply will be deemed timely, this motion will be denied as moot.

CONCLUSION 

1. Petitioner's motion for appointment of counsel (document number 26 on the

docket) is DENIED. 

2. Petitioner's motion for an extension of time to amend (document 31) is

GRANTED and the time to amend is EXTENDED to May 28, 2007. Further extensions will

be granted only in the most compelling circumstances. Petitioner's other motions for

extensions (documents 17, 20 and 21) are DENIED as moot. 

3. Petitioner's motion for an extension of time to reply to the opposition to his

request for injunctive relief (document 22) is GRANTED and the reply is deemed timely. 

For the reasons set out above, his motions for injunctive relief (documents 11 and 26) are

DENIED. 

4. Petitioner's "Investigative/Remedial Motions, Re: missing 01 Aug 06 Submission" 

(document 34) is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 16, 2007. 

 PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON

United States District Judge

G:\PRO-SE\PJH\HC.05\BLACH446.MISC

Case 4:05-cv-04446-PJH Document 36 Filed 03/16/07 Page 4 of 4