Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_19-cv-01785/USCOURTS-caed-1_19-cv-01785-1/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

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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Petitioner filed a federal habeas petition in this Court on December 23, 2019. (Doc. 1.) After 

conducting a preliminary screening, the Court found the petition failed to name the proper respondent. 

(Doc. 6.) The Court dismissed the petition with leave to file an amended petition. (Id. at 3.) Petitioner 

filed a first amended petition on February 14, 2020. (Doc. 7.) A review of the amended petition 

reveals that the petition fails to state a cognizable federal claim for relief. Therefore, the Court will 

dismiss the amended petition and direct Petitioner to file a second amended petition. 

I. DISCUSSION

A. Preliminary Review of Petition

Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases requires the Court to make a preliminary 

review of each petition for writ of habeas corpus. The Court must summarily dismiss a petition “[i]f it 

plainly appears from the petition and any attached exhibits that the petitioner is not entitled to relief in 

the district court . . . .” Rule 4; O’Bremski v. Maass, 915 F.2d 418, 420 (9th Cir. 1990). The Advisory 

RODOLFO A. CONTRERAS,

 Petitioner,

v.

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA,

Respondent.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 1:19-cv-01785-JLT (HC)

ORDER DISMISSING FIRST AMENDED 

PETITION AND DIRECTING PETITIONER TO 

FILE A SECOND AMENDED PETITION 

[THIRTY-DAY DEADLINE]

Case 1:19-cv-01785-DAD-JLT Document 8 Filed 02/27/20 Page 1 of 3
2

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

Committee Notes to Rule 8 indicate that the Court may dismiss a petition for writ of habeas corpus, 

either on its own motion under Rule 4, pursuant to the respondent’s motion to dismiss, or after an 

answer to the petition has been filed. 

B. Failure to State a Cognizable Federal Claim

The basic scope of habeas corpus is prescribed by statute. Title 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a) states:

The Supreme Court, a Justice thereof, a circuit judge, or a district court shall entertain an 

application for a writ of habeas corpus in behalf of a person in custody pursuant to a 

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.

(emphasis added). See also Rule 1 to the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States 

District Court. The Supreme Court has held that “the essence of habeas corpus is an attack by a 

person in custody upon the legality of that custody . . .” Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 484 

(1973).

To succeed in a petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, Petitioner must demonstrate that the 

adjudication of his claim in state court

(1) resulted in a decision that was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application 

of, clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United 

States; or (2) resulted in a decision that was based on an unreasonable determination of 

the facts in light of the evidence presented in the State court proceeding.

28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1),(2). In addition to the above, Rule 2(c) of the Rules Governing Section 2254 

Cases requires that the petition:

(1) Specify all the grounds for relief available to the petitioner;

(2) State the facts supporting each ground;

(3) State the relief requested;

(4) Be printed, typewritten, or legibly handwritten; and

(5) Be signed under penalty of perjury by the petitioner or by a person authorized to sign it for 

the petitioner under 28 U.S.C. § 2242.

Petitioner has failed to comply with Rule 2(c) by failing to state how the adjudication of his

claims in state court resulted in a decision that was contrary to, or an unreasonable application of,

clearly established Supreme Court authority. Therefore, Petitioner fails to state a cognizable federal 

habeas claim and the petition must be dismissed. Petitioner will be granted an opportunity to file a 

second amended petition to cure this deficiency. Petitioner is advised that he should entitle his 

Case 1:19-cv-01785-DAD-JLT Document 8 Filed 02/27/20 Page 2 of 3
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

pleading, “Second Amended Petition,” and he should reference the instant case number. 

II. ORDER

Accordingly, the Court ORDERS:

1) The first amended petition is DISMISSED; and

2) Petitioner is GRANTED thirty days from the date of service of this order to file a second 

amended petition that complies with this Order. 

Petitioner is forewarned that his failure to comply with this Order will result in a

recommendation that the petition be dismissed pursuant to Local Rule 110. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 27, 2020 /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:19-cv-01785-DAD-JLT Document 8 Filed 02/27/20 Page 3 of 3