Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-01892/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-01892-0/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

K:\COMMON\EVERYONE\_EFILE-PROSE\JLS\11cv1892_IFPgrt&dismiss.wpd, 9611 -1- 11cv1892

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

WILLIAM CECIL THORNTON, Civil No. 11-1892 JLS (RBB)

Petitioner,

ORDER: 

(1) GRANTING APPLICATION TO

PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS; and

(2) DISMISSING CASE WITHOUT

PREJUDICE AND WITH LEAVE TO

AMEND

v.

MICHAEL STAINER, Warden, et al.,

Respondents.

Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has submitted a Petition for Writ of Habeas

Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, together with a request to proceed in forma pauperis. 

MOTION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS

Petitioner has $0.00 on account at the California correctional institution in which he is

presently confined. Petitioner cannot afford the $5.00 filing fee. Thus, the Court GRANTS

Petitioner’s application to proceed in forma pauperis, and allows Petitioner to prosecute the

above-referenced action as a poor person without being required to prepay fees or costs and

without being required to post security. The Clerk of the Court shall file the Petition for Writ

of Habeas Corpus without prepayment of the filing fee.

/ / /

/ / /

Case 3:11-cv-01892-JLS-RBB Document 4 Filed 09/06/11 Page 1 of 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

K:\COMMON\EVERYONE\_EFILE-PROSE\JLS\11cv1892_IFPgrt&dismiss.wpd, 9611 -2- 11cv1892

FAILURE TO STATE A COGNIZABLE FEDERAL CLAIM 

Additionally, in accordance with Rule 4 of the rules governing § 2254 cases, Petitioner

has failed to allege that his state court conviction or sentence violates the Constitution of the

United States.

Title 28, United States Code, § 2254(a), sets forth the following scope of review for

federal habeas corpus claims:

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 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) (emphasis added). See Hernandez v. Ylst, 930 F.2d 714, 719 (9th Cir.

1991); Mannhalt v. Reed, 847 F.2d 576, 579 (9th Cir. 1988); Kealohapauole v. Shimoda, 800

F.2d 1463, 1464-65 (9th Cir. 1986). Thus, to present a cognizable federal habeas corpus claim

under § 2254, a state prisoner must allege both that he is in custody pursuant to a “judgment of

a State court,” and that he is in custody in “violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the

United States.” See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a). 

Here, Petitioner claims that he was not awarded custody credits in accordance with

California Penal Code section 4019. (See Pet. at 6.) In no way does Petitioner claim he is “in

custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C.

§ 2254.

CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, the Court GRANTS Petitioner’s motion to proceed in forma

pauperis and DISMISSES this action without prejudice and with leave to amend. To have this

case reopened, Petitioner must, no later than October 28, 2011, file a First Amended Petition

that cures the pleading deficiencies set forth above. The Clerk of Court is directed to mail

Petitioner a blank First Amended Petition form together with a copy of this Order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: September 6, 2011

Honorable Janis L. Sammartino

United States District Judge

Case 3:11-cv-01892-JLS-RBB Document 4 Filed 09/06/11 Page 2 of 2