Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-04228/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-04228-0/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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOHN NEBLETT,

Petitioner,

v.

S. W. ORNOSKI, warden,

Respondent. /

No. C 05-4228 SI (pr)

ORDER GRANTING

RECONSIDERATION MOTION,

REOPENING ACTION AND

REQUIRING BRIEFER BRIEF

John Neblett, an inmate at San Quentin State Prison, filed this pro se action seeking a writ

of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The petition does not challenge Neblett's murder

conviction but instead challenges the Board of Prison Terms' decision at an October 15, 2003

hearing that found him not suitable for parole. The court dismissed the action without prejudice

because the face of the petition disclosed that state judicial remedies had not been exhausted

before the petition was filed. 

Neblett has filed a motion for reconsideration in which he explained that he had in fact

exhausted state court remedies but had neglected to include that information in his federal habeas

petition. He provided a copy of the California Supreme Court's denial of his petition for writ of

habeas corpus as proof that he had exhausted state court remedies. Neblett has shown cause for

the reconsideration of the order of dismissal. The motion for reconsideration is GRANTED.

(Docket # 6.) The Order Of Dismissal and Judgment will be vacated and the action reopened.

Case 3:05-cv-04228-SI Document 7 Filed 03/16/06 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

The petition sets out the claims in just a few pages, but is supported by an 85-page legal

brief that is unacceptably long. The 85-page brief presents a legal discussion that unduly

emphasizes state law issues and includes citations to more than 60 state court cases -- strongly

suggestive of a brief that has been recycled with little modification from its earlier life as a state

court brief. The brief needs an edit by an editor bearing in mind the limits of federal habeas

jurisdiction: federal habeas relief cannot be granted unless the state court's rejection of the claims

"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." 28 U.S.C.

§ 2254(d)(1). Furthermore, whether there were violations of state procedural laws is largely

beside the point here because a federal habeas court cannot grant relief based on a violation of

state law. See Estelle v. McGuire, 502 U.S. 62, 68 (1991); Walters v. Maass, 45 F.3d 1355,

1357 (9th Cir. 1995). 

While the court is mindful of the need to accommodate pro se litigants, the court also

must be mindful of its limited resources. Requiring the court to read a largely irrelevant

argument wastes limited judicial resources – a waste that easily can be avoided if a petitioner

trims the arguments that might have been of interest in state court but have no place in a federal

habeas petition. This waste of judicial resources is of particular concern in the parole denial

cases: Neblett is one of the dozens and dozens of inmates filing this same kind of case, usually

with the aid of a prison writ writer. If the extremely lengthy and largely irrelevant brief goes

unchecked here, it likely will show up in many other cases. The court will not accept the brief

and will require instead a replacement memorandum of points and authorities not in excess of

25 pages. 

For the foregoing reasons,

1. The motion for reconsideration is GRANTED. (Docket # 6.) The Order

Of Dismissal and Judgment are VACATED. The clerk will REOPEN this action. 

2. Petitioner's memorandum of points and authorities in support of his petition

(i.e., all the pages following page 4 of his typewritten petition) are stricken. Petitioner must file

a replacement memorandum of points and authorities no later than May 5, 2006. The

Case 3:05-cv-04228-SI Document 7 Filed 03/16/06 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

replacement memorandum may not exceed 25 pages in length. The replacement memorandum

must be double-spaced, although it may be handwritten or typed.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: March 14, 2006 

 SUSAN ILLSTON

United States District Judge

Case 3:05-cv-04228-SI Document 7 Filed 03/16/06 Page 3 of 3