Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_15-cv-00833/USCOURTS-cand-4_15-cv-00833-0/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)

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

OAKLAND DIVISION

STEVEN A. THORESON,

Petitioner,

 vs.

JEFFREY BEARD, Warden,

Respondent. /

No. C 15-0833 PJH (PR)

ORDER OF DISMISSAL 

Petitioner, a California prisoner has filed a pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 

DISCUSSION

A. Standard of Review

This court may entertain a petition for 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); Rose v. Hodges, 423 U.S. 19, 21 (1975). Habeas corpus petitions must meet

heightened pleading requirements. McFarland v. Scott, 512 U.S. 849, 856 (1994). An

application for a federal writ of habeas corpus filed by a prisoner who is in state custody

pursuant to a judgment of a state court must “specify all the grounds for relief available to

the petitioner ... [and] state the facts supporting each ground.” Rule 2(c) of the Rules

Governing § 2254 Cases, 28 U.S.C. foll. § 2254. “‘[N]otice’ pleading is not sufficient, for the

petition is expected to state facts that point to a ‘real possibility of constitutional error.’” 

Rule 4 Advisory Committee Notes (quoting Aubut v. Maine, 431 F.2d 688, 689 (1st Cir.

1970)). “Habeas petitions which appear on their face to be legally insufficient are subject

Case 4:15-cv-00833-PJH Document 7 Filed 03/12/15 Page 1 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

 The court may take judicial notice of its own records in another case. United States

v. Howard, 381 F.3d 873, 876 n. 1 (9th Cir.2004)

2

 After being informed of the deficiencies in his petition, petitioner was provided an

opportunity to amend in case No. C 12-4782 PJH (PR), yet his amended petition was

dismissed.

2

to summary dismissal.” Calderon v. United States Dist. Court (Nicolaus), 98 F.3d 1102,

1108 (9th Cir. 1996) (Schroeder, J., concurring). 

B. Legal Claims

Petitioner pleaded guilty to unlawful sexual conduct with a minor, Cal. Penal Code §

288.5(a), and was sentenced to twelve years in state prison on April 24, 2006. Petitioner

alleges that trial court improperly sentenced him and there was a violation of his plea

bargain. Petitioner has brought three previous habeas petitions regarding this same

conviction with variations on these claims. See Thoreson v. Grounds, No. C 12-4782 PJH

(PR); Thoreson v. Spearman, No. C 13-0721 PJH (PR); Thoreson v. Spearman, No. C 13-

04223 PJH (PR).1

 Court orders dismissing the petitions in the previous cases discussed

the relevant facts and law and described why petitioner’s claims lacked merit and that the

petitions were successive.2

 See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A). While petitioner states he has

requested permission from the Ninth Circuit to file a successive petition he has not provided

an order from the Ninth Circuit granting permission. In addition, petitioner has not paid the

filing fee or filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis. 

This petition is denied for the same reasons set forth in the prior cases, as

successive, and for failure to pay the filing fee or filing an application to proceed in forma

pauperis. If petitioner obtains permission from the Ninth Circuit to file a successive petition

he may file a new case. 

CONCLUSION 

For the reasons set forth above, the petition is DISMISSED. 

Because reasonable jurists would not find the result here debatable, a certificate of 

Case 4:15-cv-00833-PJH Document 7 Filed 03/12/15 Page 2 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

appealability (“COA”) is DENIED. See Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484-85 (2000)

(standard for COA). The clerk shall close the file. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 12, 2015. 

 PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON

United States District Judge

G:\PRO-SE\PJH\HC.15\Thoreson0833.dsm.wpd

 

Case 4:15-cv-00833-PJH Document 7 Filed 03/12/15 Page 3 of 3