Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_20-cv-00283/USCOURTS-caed-2_20-cv-00283-3/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

MELANJE PHEA,

Petitioner,

v.

C. PFIEFFER, Warden,

Respondent.

No. 2:20-cv-00283 WBS GGH P

ORDER

Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed an amended petition for writ of 

habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. ECF No. 17. 

Rule 2 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases provides that the petition: “shall 

specify all the grounds for relief which are available to the petitioner and of which he has or by 

the exercise of reasonable diligence should have knowledge and shall set forth in summary form 

the facts supporting each of the grounds thus specified.” Rule 2(c), Rules Governing Section 

2254 Cases. Petitioner must also clearly state the relief sought in the petition. Id. Additionally, 

the Advisory Committee Notes to Rule 4 explains that “notice pleading is not sufficient, for the 

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

Committee Notes to Rule 4; see Blackledge v. Allison, 431 U.S. 63, 75, n.7 (1977).

////

Case 2:20-cv-00283-WBS-KJN Document 21 Filed 05/14/20 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

In the first amended petition, petitioner sets forth 16 grounds for relief. Here, because 

petitioner did not complete the section on the court’s form describing whether each ground raised 

has been raised in state court, the undersigned is unable to discern whether petitioner has fully 

exhausted his state court remedies with respect to the alleged federal constitutional claims 

petitioner is seeking to raise in his petition. The exhaustion of available state remedies is a 

prerequisite to a federal court’s consideration of claims sought to be presented in habeas corpus 

proceedings. See Rose v. Lundy, 455 U.S. 509 (1982); 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b). A petitioner can 

satisfy the exhaustion requirement by providing the highest state court with a full and fair 

opportunity to consider all claims before presenting them to the federal court. Picard v. Connor, 

404 U.S. 270, 276 (1971), Middleton v. Cupp, 768 F.2d 1083, 1086 (9th Cir. 1985), cert. denied, 

478 U.S. 1021 (1986). The court will provide petitioner another opportunity to file an amended 

petition addressing these deficiencies. Petitioner must demonstrate in his amended petition that he 

has exhausted his state court remedies for each ground for relief. 

The petition fails to comply with Rule 2(c), Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. 

Therefore, the petition is dismissed with leave to amend. Rule 4, Rules Governing Section 2254 

Cases. In the amended petition, petitioner must set forth each claim for relief and summarize the 

facts he alleges support each of the identified claims. Moreover, petitioner must address whether 

each ground for relief has been presented to the California Supreme Court. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Petitioner’s first amended petition for writ of habeas corpus is dismissed with leave to 

amend within thirty days from the date of this order;1

3. Any amended petition must bear the case number assigned to this action and the title 

“Second Amended Petition”; and

////

////

////

1

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

subject to dismissal as untimely.

Case 2:20-cv-00283-WBS-KJN Document 21 Filed 05/14/20 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

4. The Clerk of the Court is directed to send petitioner the court’s form application for 

writ of habeas corpus. 

Dated: May 14, 2020

 /s/ Gregory G. Hollows

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:20-cv-00283-WBS-KJN Document 21 Filed 05/14/20 Page 3 of 3