Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-02561/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-02561-0/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

MICHAEL ALLAHRAE FOX, 

Petitioner, 

v. 

STU SHERMAN, 

Respondent. 

No. 2:15-cv-2561 GGH P 

ORDER 

 Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed an application for a writ of habeas 

corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, together with an application to proceed in forma pauperis. 

 Examination of the in forma pauperis application reveals that petitioner is unable to afford 

the costs of suit. Accordingly, the application to proceed in forma pauperis will be granted. See 

28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). 

The grounds as currently stated are too conclusory to permit the court to determine 

whether they state a cognizable claim, and contain no supporting facts. For example, Ground 

One states, “Instruction on Custody Status,” and under supporting facts states, “please see [] 

attached #2.” (ECF No. 1 at 5.) These statements are the sum total of explanation for Ground 

One. Thus, although petitioner has listed the grounds for relief in his petition, and despite stating 

that supporting facts are attached, there are no attachments to the petition other than the 

California Court of Appeals’ opinion. The other grounds are similarly devoid of content. The 

Case 2:15-cv-02561-JAM-GGH Document 4 Filed 12/22/15 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

petition also fails to state the relief requested. (Id. at 15.) See Rule 2(c), Rules Governing § 2254 

Cases. 

Petitioner does not state what instruction was given or not given in regard to custody 

status, and the court cannot determine what “custody status” means in this context. The petition 

does not provide any background on what took place in the trial court. Other than the court of 

appeals’ opinion, petitioner does not provide the court with any supplemental materials which 

may have assisted the court in determining what occurred at petitioner’s trial. While the court is 

cognizant of the low threshold for petitioner at this stage of the proceedings, absent these most 

basic facts, the court is currently unable to determine whether petitioner alleges a cognizable 

claim. See, e.g., Jarvis v. Nelson, 440 F.2d 13, 14 (9th Cir. 1971) (deficient petition should be 

dismissed with leave to amend “unless it appears that no tenable claim for relief can be pleaded 

were such relief granted.”) 

The notice pleading standard applicable in ordinary civil proceedings does not apply in 

habeas corpus cases; rather, Rules 2(c), 4, and 5(b) of the Rules Governing Habeas Corpus Cases 

in the United States District Courts require a more detailed statement of all grounds for relief and 

the facts supporting each ground; the petition is expected to state facts that point to a real 

possibility of constitutional error and show the relationship of the facts to the claim. Mayle v. 

Felix, 545 U.S. 644, 655 (2005). This is because the purpose of the rules is to assist the district 

court in determining whether the respondent should be ordered to show cause why the writ should 

not be granted and to permit the filing of an answer that satisfies the requirement that it address 

the allegations in the petition. Id. Conclusional allegations that are not supported by a statement 

of specific facts do not warrant habeas relief. Jones v. Gomez, 66 F.3d 199, 204-05 (9th Cir. 

1995). 

 Therefore, the petition will be dismissed, and petitioner will have the opportunity to file 

an amended petition. The amended petition shall describe the claims in detail as requested above. 

Petitioner shall additionally provide the court with copies of any briefs by his attorney and state 

court opinions, to the extent they are available to him. 

//// 

Case 2:15-cv-02561-JAM-GGH Document 4 Filed 12/22/15 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 

3

 In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 

 1. Petitioner’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis is granted; 

 2. The Clerk of the Court is directed to send petitioner a copy of the in forma pauperis 

form used by this district; 

3. Petitioner’s application for writ of habeas corpus is dismissed with leave to amend 

within thirty days from the date of this order;1

 4. Any amended petition must be filed on the form provided with this order, must name 

the proper respondent, and must state all claims and prayers for relief on the form; it must bear 

the case number assigned to this action and the title “Amended Petition”; failure to file an 

amended petition will result in the dismissal of this action; and 

 5. The Clerk of the Court is directed to send petitioner the court’s form petition for writ of 

habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 

Dated: December 21, 2015 

 /s/ Gregory G. Hollows 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

GGH:076/fox2561.101a 

 

1

 By setting this deadline the court is making no finding or representation that the petition is not 

subject to dismissal as untimely. 

Case 2:15-cv-02561-JAM-GGH Document 4 Filed 12/22/15 Page 3 of 3