Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-02190/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-02190-2/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

K :\C O M M O N \E V E R Y O N E \_EFILE-PRO SE\L A B \11cv2190 d ism iss SAP.w pd, 113011 -1- 11cv2190

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MARVIN GOLDSTON, Jr, Civil No. 11-2190 LAB (CAB)

Petitioner,

ORDER DISMISSING SECOND

AMENDED PETITION WITHOUT

PREJUDICE AND WITH LEAVE TO

AMEND

v.

WARDEN BIRGA, 

Respondent.

On September 19, 2011, Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, submitted a

Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, together with a request to

proceed in forma pauperis. The Court denied the in forma pauperis request and dismissed the

case without prejudice and with leave to amend on September 27, 2011. (See ECF No. 3.)

Petitioner was given until November 29, 2011, to either pay the $5.00 filing or submit adequate

proof of his inability to pay the fee, and to submit a First Amended Petition which cured the

pleading deficiencies outlined in the Order. (Id.) 

On October 12, 2011, Petitioner submitted a First Amended Petition. (See ECF No. 4.)

On October 19, 2011, Petitioner submitted a motion to proceed in forma pauperis. (See ECF No.

5.) By Order dated October 25, 2011, the Court granted Petitioner’s application to proceed in

forma pauperis, and dismissed the case for his failure to allege exhaustion of state judicial

remedies, and state a cognizable federal claim. Petitioner was advised that he could proceed

Case 3:11-cv-02190-LAB-CAB Document 9 Filed 11/30/11 Page 1 of 5
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

K :\C O M M O N \E V E R Y O N E \_EFILE-PRO SE\L A B \11cv2190 d ism iss SAP.w pd, 113011 -2- 11cv2190

with the case if he filed a Second Amended Petition which cured the pleading deficiencies noted

in the Order no later than December 26, 2011. (See ECF No. 6.) 

On November 14, 2011, Petitioner filed a Second Amended Petition. (See ECF No. 8.)

FAILURE TO ALLEGE EXHAUSTION OF STATE JUDICIAL REMEDIES

Petitioner has once again failed to allege exhaustion of his state judicial remedies.

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). To exhaust state judicial remedies, a

California state prisoner must present the California Supreme Court with a fair opportunity to

rule on the merits of every issue raised in his or her federal habeas petition. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b),

(c); Granberry, 481 U.S. at 133-34. 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. The Supreme Court in Duncan v. Henry, 513 U.S. 364 (1995) reasoned: “If state

courts are to be given the opportunity to correct alleged violations of prisoners’ federal rights,

they must surely be alerted to the fact that the prisoners are asserting claims under the United

States Constitution.” Id. at 365-66 (emphasis added). 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.” Id. at 366 (emphasis added).

Petitioner indicates he did not seek review in the California Supreme Court. (See Pet. at

6-7, ECF No. 8.) 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 shall apply 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 shall run from the latest of:

//

//

Case 3:11-cv-02190-LAB-CAB Document 9 Filed 11/30/11 Page 2 of 5
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

K :\C O M M O N \E V E R Y O N E \_EFILE-PRO SE\L A B \11cv2190 d ism iss SAP.w pd, 113011 -3- 11cv2190

(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 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.

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).

Case 3:11-cv-02190-LAB-CAB Document 9 Filed 11/30/11 Page 3 of 5
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

K :\C O M M O N \E V E R Y O N E \_EFILE-PRO SE\L A B \11cv2190 d ism iss SAP.w pd, 113011 -4- 11cv2190

Here, Petitioner has again violated Rule 2(c) because although he claims counsel was ineffective,

he has failed to support the claim with specific factual allegations. (See Pet. at 6, ECF NO. 8.)

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 conclusory allegations without any grounds for relief. A federal court may not entertain

a petition that contains allegations which are conclusory. 

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

make sense of the Petition. 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 3:11-cv-02190-LAB-CAB Document 9 Filed 11/30/11 Page 4 of 5
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

K :\C O M M O N \E V E R Y O N E \_EFILE-PRO SE\L A B \11cv2190 d ism iss SAP.w pd, 113011 -5- 11cv2190

CONCLUSION

Accordingly, the Court DISMISSES the Second Amended Petition without prejudice and

with leave to amend. If Petitioner wishes to proceed with this action, he must file a Third

Amended Petition on or before December 26, 2011, which cures the pleading deficiencies noted

above. If Petitioner fails to file a Third Amended Petition by that date, or files a Third Amended

Petition which fails to cure the pleading deficiencies noted above, he will be required to start

over by filing a new federal habeas Petition which will be given a new civil case number. The

Clerk of Court is directed to send Petitioner a blank Third Amended Petition form together

with a copy of this Order. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: November 29, 2011

HONORABLE LARRY ALAN BURNS

United States District Judge

Case 3:11-cv-02190-LAB-CAB Document 9 Filed 11/30/11 Page 5 of 5