Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_15-cv-01633/USCOURTS-cand-5_15-cv-01633-0/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). 

2

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

Case No. C 15-1633 PSG (PR)

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

BOBBIE LEE SMITH,

Petitioner,

 v.

JOHN SOTO, Warden,

Respondent. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No. C 15-1633 PSG (PR)

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

Bobbie Lee Smith, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, seeks a writ of habeas corpus

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. On August 3, 2015, the court dismissed the petition with leave to

amend, and directed Smith to file an amended petition within thirty days. Smith 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 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

Case 5:15-cv-01633-PSG Document 13 Filed 09/17/15 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

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 15-1633 PSG (PR)

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

2

cause.3

 Smith 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. 

To date, Smith has not communicated with the court. 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 Smith 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. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: PAUL S. GREWAL 

United States Magistrate Judge

9/17/2015

Case 5:15-cv-01633-PSG Document 13 Filed 09/17/15 Page 2 of 2