Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_14-cv-05475/USCOURTS-cand-5_14-cv-05475-0/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

1

 See Hendricks v. Vasquez, 908 F.2d 490, 491-92 (9th Cir. 1990) (habeas petitioner must state

his claims with sufficient specificity). 

Case No. C 14-5475 PSG (PR)

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

JESSE M. MOREHEAD,

Petitioner,

 v.

DAVE DAVEY, Warden,

Respondent. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No. C 14-5475 PSG (PR)

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

Jesse M. Morehead, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, seeks a writ of habeas corpus

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. On April 9, 2014, the court dismissed the petition with leave to

amend, and directed Morehead to file an amended petition within thirty days to clarify upon

what ground or grounds Morehead is challenging his disciplinary conviction. The court

instructed Morehead also to inform the court whether his state habeas petition to the California

Supreme Court has been resolved, and if so, the date upon which the California Supreme Court

issued its order. Morehead was advised that in a habeas petition, a petitioner must specify all

the grounds for relief available and state the facts supporting each ground.1

 A prime purpose that

habeas petitioners plead with particularity is to assist the district court in determining whether

Case 5:14-cv-05475-PSG Document 10 Filed 06/02/15 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

 See Mayle v. Felix, 545 U.S. 644, 655-56 (2005). 

3

 See Allard v. Nelson, 423 F.2d 1216, 1217 (9th Cir. 1970). 

4

 See Rule 11(a), Rules Governing § 2254 Cases, 28 U.S.C. foll. § 2254. 

5

 Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). 

Case No. C 14-5475 PSG (PR)

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

2

the state should be ordered to show cause why the writ should not be granted.2

 Conclusory

allegations in a habeas petition fail to state a claim and do not suffice to shift the burden to the

state to answer an order to show cause.3

 Morehead was cautioned that his failure to file his

amended petition within thirty days in conformity with the court’s order would result in the

dismissal of this action. 

On April 21, 2015, Morehead filed a response in which he indicated that he was

requesting “compensation funds” for a wrongful charge and restoration of time credits. He states

that he is innocent until proven guilty and that his Miranda rights were violated. Morehead’s

response fails to provide any factual support even for his Miranda allegation. In addition,

Morehead fails to mention whether his California Supreme Court petition has been resolved. 

In sum, Morehead’s response fails to comply with the court’s previous order directing

him to clearly state the grounds for habeas relief challenging either an underlying state court

criminal conviction or the legality of his confinement. In addition, Morehead failed to set out

how he has exhausted his claims, that is, what he did to present them first to the highest state

court available, which is the Supreme Court of California. 

For the foregoing reasons, the case is DISMISSED without prejudice. 

The federal rules governing habeas cases brought by state prisoners require a district

court that denies a habeas petition to grant or deny a certificate of appealability (“COA”) in its

ruling.4

 Morehead has not shown “that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the

petition states a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional right.”5

 

Accordingly, a COA is DENIED. 

Case 5:14-cv-05475-PSG Document 10 Filed 06/02/15 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

Case No. C 14-5475 PSG (PR)

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

3

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: PAUL S. GREWAL 

United States Magistrate Judge

6/2/2015

Case 5:14-cv-05475-PSG Document 10 Filed 06/02/15 Page 3 of 3