Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_16-cv-01011/USCOURTS-caed-1_16-cv-01011-0/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

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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

A federal court may only grant a petition for writ of habeas corpus if the petitioner can show 

that "he is in custody in violation of the Constitution . . . ." 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (a). A petition for writ 

of habeas corpus must specify the grounds for relief. Rule 2(c) of the Rules Governing Section 2254 

Cases. The petition must also allege the facts surrounding petitioner’s incarceration. 28 U.S.C. § 

2242. The petitioner must make specific factual allegations that would entitle him to habeas corpus 

relief if they are true. O'Bremski v. Maass, 915 F.2d 418, 420 (9th Cir.1990); United States v. 

Poopola, 881 F.2d 811, 812 (9th Cir. 1989). In addition, a petition presented in pro se must be 

submitted upon the form approved by the Court. See Rule 2 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 

Cases; Local Rule 81-190 This rule ensures that all necessary information needed is before the Court. 

Each ground for relief must be clearly stated and allege what federal constitutional violation has 

occurred, along with providing facts that support the grounds for relief. If a petition contains no 

MARTIN V. HERNANDEZ,

 Petitioner,

v.

RAYMOND D. MADDEN, Warden,

Respondent.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 1:16-cv-01011-JLT

ORDER REQUIRING PETITIONER TO SUBMIT 

AN AMENDED PETITION

THIRTY DAY DEADLINE

ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF THE COURT TO 

SEND PETITIONER A FORM FOR FILING 

HABEAS CORPUS PETITION PURSUANT TO 28 

U.S.C. § 2254

Case 1:16-cv-01011-JLT Document 9 Filed 07/18/16 Page 1 of 3
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

grounds entitling the petitioner to habeas corpus relief, the Court must dismiss the petition. Rule 4 of 

the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. 

Here, in the space provided on the habeas form for listing his claims for relief, Petitioner has 

not listed any claims whatsoever; instead, he has referred the Court to his attachments, which include 

what appear to be his brief in the California Court of Appeal and a copy of a state habeas petition filed 

in the Fresno County Superior Court. (Doc. 1) However, Petitioner has not established that the 

additional claim raised in the state habeas petition has been exhausted in state court, nor has he clearly 

delineated the claims he wishes to raise in these proceedings by including them on the form provided. 

Rather, he has left it to this Court to surmise and speculate that he wishes to raise the claims contained 

in the attached documents. 

The type of filing that simply references attachments requires the Court to expend 

considerable time and resources attempting to determine which claims petitioner seeks to raise 

before this Court. It is unreasonable to expect the Court to take on such a task when the 

responsibility to inform the Court lies solely with Petitioner.1 The proper use of the form 

petition results in administrative convenience of benefit to both Petitioner and the Court. Thus, 

Petitioner will be required to resubmit the form petition once it has been completely filled out as 

is stated on the form. A petitioner may submit attachments to the form; however, a simple 

reference to the attached where specific information is required is not acceptable.

The Court will not permit these proceedings to continue based on surmise and speculation 

about what Petitioner is or may be contending. It is Petitioner’s responsibility to adequately plead his 

habeas claims in the form provided by the Court, not in a compilation of documents he may choose to 

attach to the form. Because Petitioner has not clearly set for his grounds for relief, a determination as 

to whether the claims have been exhausted in the state courts is impossible. In addition to listing his 

grounds for relief, Petitioner must tell the Court which claims were raised at which court. This 

information must include the dates of filing and disposition so as to determine whether Petitioner has 

exhausted his state remedies and is in compliance with the limitations period prescribed by 28 U.S.C. 

 

1

Petitioners are not precluded from submitting attachments or exhibits to the petition; however, the Court will not 

determine a petitioner's claims for him based solely on his attachments. 

Case 1:16-cv-01011-JLT Document 9 Filed 07/18/16 Page 2 of 3
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

§2244(d)(1).2 Without this information, the Court cannot proceed to the merits of the petition. 

Accordingly, the Court ORDERS:

1. The petition for writ of habeas corpus is DISMISSED. Petitioner is GRANTED 30 days 

from the date of service of this Order to SUBMIT a FIRST AMENDED PETITION that is 

in compliance with this Order. 

2. The Clerk of the Court is DIRECTED to send Petitioner a blank form petition for 

petitioners filing pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 

Petitioner is forewarned that his failure to comply with this Order may result in an Order of 

Dismissal or a Recommendation that the petition be dismissed pursuant to Local Rule 110.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 16, 2016 /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

 

2

Petitioner should note that a one year period of limitations exists for cases filed pursuant to §2254. In most cases, the one 

year limitation period starts to run on the date the California Supreme Court denied petitioner’s direct review. The 

limitations period is tolled while a properly filed request for post-conviction or other collateral review is pending in state 

court. 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(2). However, the running of the limitation period is not tolled for the time an application for 

post-conviction or collateral review is pending in federal court. Sperling v. White, 30 F. Supp.2d 1246, 1250 (C.D. Cal. 

1998).

Case 1:16-cv-01011-JLT Document 9 Filed 07/18/16 Page 3 of 3