Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-03263/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-03263-0/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MICHAEL WU,

Petitioner,

 vs.

SUZAN HUBBARD, Acting Warden,

Respondent. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No C 06-3263 VRW (PR)

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

Petitioner, a state prisoner incarcerated at the California Medical Facility

in Vacaville, California, filed a pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus under

28 USC § 2254 challenging a conviction from the Superior Court of the State of

California in and for the County of Santa Clara. He later filed a supplement to

the petition (and numerous exhibits), seeking to add new claims and arguments. 

Per order filed on August 28, 2006, the court dismissed the petition with

leave to amend to file an amended petition containing all exhausted federal

claims petitioner wishes to pursue in this habeas action The court advised

petitioner that the amended pleading must be simple and concise, and in the

court's habeas form. It further advised him that failure to file a proper amended

petition within 30 days would result in the dismissal of his action.

Case 3:06-cv-03263-VRW Document 21 Filed 12/18/07 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 2

Petitioner filed numerous supplements and exhibits, and finally a First

Amended Petition ("FAP"). He continued filing more exhibits and supporting

documents. 

Per order filed on April 5, 2007, the court dismissed the FAP with leave to

amend. The court explained:

. . . The FAP is prolix and confusing. Although petitioner

used the court's habeas form, he inserted numerous pages of

rambling prose between the form's pages and wrote extensive

comments and arguments along the margins of the form. It is

essentially impossible to ascertain from petitioner's FAP what

claims he seeks to bring in federal court, much less how he

exhausted any of them in the state courts. The subsequent exhibits

and supporting documents confuse matters further by raising new

arguments and claims.

Petitioner's FAP will not do. "The Federal Rules require that

averments 'be simple, concise, and direct.'" McHenry v Renne, 84

F3d 1172, 1177 (9th Cir 1996). Prolix, confusing petitions such as

the one petitioner filed in this case impose unfair burdens on

litigants and judges and fail to perform the essential functions of a

petition. Cf id at 1179-80. Petitioner's FAP is DISMISSED. 

Petitioner will be afforded a final opportunity to file a

simple, concise and direct petition which states clearly and

succinctly each claim he seeks to bring in federal court and

explains how each claim was exhausted in the state courts. The

amended pleading must be in the court's habeas form (a blank copy

is attached) and must include the caption and civil case number

used in this order and the words SECOND AMENDED PETITION

on the first page. Failure to file a proper amended petition within

30 days of this order will result in the dismissal of this action.

Apr 5, 2007 Order at 2.

Petitioner filed a Second Amended Petition ("SAP") accompanied by

extensive supplements and exhibits. Unfortunately, the SAP is no better than the

FAP. It is prolix and confusing, and fails to states clearly and succinctly each

claim petitioner seeks to bring in federal court and fails to explain how any claim

was exhausted in the state courts. Although petitioner again uses the court's

habeas form, he again rambles on and on about the unfairness of the state

criminal proceedings against him without setting forth any specific facts in

Case 3:06-cv-03263-VRW Document 21 Filed 12/18/07 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 3

support of any specific claim for habeas relief under 28 USC § 2254. It is still

virtually impossible to ascertain from petitioner's voluminous filings what claims

he seeks to bring in federal court.

 Rule 2(c) of the Rules Governing Habeas Corpus cases requires a habeas

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 F2d 490,

491-92 (9th Cir 1990) (habeas petitioner must state his claims with sufficient

specificity); Wacht v Cardwell, 604 F2d 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. Mayle v Felix, 545

US 644, 655-56 (2005) (citing 28 USC § 2253). Petitioner has not met Rule

2(c)'s demand despite being afforded two opportunities to do so. His prolix,

confusing and conclusory allegations fail to state a claim and do not suffice to

shift the burden to the state to answer an order to show cause. See Allard v

Nelson, 423 F2d 1216, 1217 (9th Cir 1970). Petitioner's rambling and repeated

calling the prosecutor a liar and his attorneys and trial judge unprofessional

simply is not enough. The petition is DISMISSED without prejudice.

The clerk shall enter judgment in accordance with this order and close the

file. 

SO ORDERED.

 

VAUGHN R WALKER

United States District Chief Judge 

G:\PRO-SE\VRW\HC.06\Wu1.or3.wpd 

Case 3:06-cv-03263-VRW Document 21 Filed 12/18/07 Page 3 of 3