Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_09-cv-05656/USCOURTS-cand-4_09-cv-05656-0/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GILBERTO SILVA,

Petitioner,

 vs.

GEORGE NEOTTI, Warden,

Respondent. /

No. C 09-5656 PJH (PR)

ORDER DISMISSING

PETITION WITH LEAVE TO

AMEND

Petitioner, a California prisoner currently incarcerated at the Richard J. Donovan

Correctional Center in San Diergo, has filed a pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. He has paid the filing fee. 

Venue is proper because the conviction was obtained in Santa Clara County, which

is in this district. See 28 U.S.C. § 2241(d).

BACKGROUND

A jury convicted petitioner of second degree robbery. With enhancements, he was

sentenced to prison for nineteen years. Petitioner unsuccessfully appealed his conviction

to the California Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court of California denied review. 

DISCUSSION

A. Standard of Review

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); Rose v. Hodges, 423 U.S. 19, 21 (1975). Habeas corpus petitions must meet

heightened pleading requirements. McFarland v. Scott, 512 U.S. 849, 856 (1994). An

Case 4:09-cv-05656-PJH Document 2 Filed 02/12/10 Page 1 of 2
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

application for a federal writ of habeas corpus filed by a prisoner who is in state custody

pursuant to a judgment of a state court must “specify all the grounds for relief which are

available to the petitioner ... and shall set forth in summary form the facts supporting each

of the grounds thus specified.” Rule 2(c) of the Rules Governing § 2254 Cases, 28 U.S.C.

foll. § 2254. “‘[N]otice’ pleading is not sufficient, for the petition is expected to state facts

that point to a ‘real possibility of constitutional error.’” Rule 4 Advisory Committee Notes

(quoting Aubut v. Maine, 431 F.2d 688, 689 (1st Cir. 1970). “Habeas petitions which

appear on their face to be legally insufficient are subject to summary dismissal.” Calderon

v. United States Dist. Court (Nicolaus), 98 F.3d 1102, 1108 (9th Cir. 1996) (Schroeder, J.,

concurring). 

B. Legal Claims

The petition was prepared by an attorney acting pro bono. In the “Grounds for

Relief” section of the form petition, counsel has written “See attachment:‘Claim One Facts

and Argument,’” but the attachment has been omitted. The petition thus does not contain

facts that point to a “real possibility of constitutional error.” Aubut, 431 F.2d at 689. It will

be dismissed with leave to amend.

CONCLUSION 

The petition is DISMISSED with leave to amend. Because the amended petition

completely replaces the original petition, petitioner should file the entire form for section

2254 petitions as well as any attachment he wishes the court to consider. If an amended

petition is not filed within thirty days for the date this order is entered, the case will be

dismissed without further leave to amend. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 12, 2010. 

 PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON

United States District Judge

P:\PRO-SE\PJH\HC.09\SILVA5656.DWLTA.wpd 

Case 4:09-cv-05656-PJH Document 2 Filed 02/12/10 Page 2 of 2