Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_19-cv-00834/USCOURTS-caed-1_19-cv-00834-1/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

AARON LAMONT STRIBLING,

Petitioner,

v.

K. CLARK,

Respondent.

Case No. 1:19-cv-00834-JDP

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO 

DISMISS AMENDED PETITION FOR LACK 

OF JURISDICTION

OBJECTIONS DUE IN FOURTEEN DAYS

ECF No. 6

ORDER DIRECTING CLERK TO ASSIGN 

CASE TO DISTRICT JUDGE

Petitioner Aaron Lamont Stribling is a state prisoner proceeding without counsel on an 

amended petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. ECF No. 6. On February 7, 

2020, we ordered petitioner to show cause why his amended petition should not be dismissed for 

failure to state a claim. ECF No. 9. Petitioner has failed to respond to our order to show cause 

and the time for doing so has passed.

The matter is before the court for preliminary review under Rule 4 of the Rules Governing 

Section 2254 Cases. Under Rule 4, we must examine the habeas petition and order a response to 

the petition unless it “plainly appears” that the petitioner is not entitled to relief. See Valdez v. 

Montgomery, 918 F.3d 687, 693 (9th Cir. 2019); Boyd v. Thompson, 147 F.3d 1124, 1127 (9th 

Cir. 1998). To pass screening, petitioner must allege a violation of “clearly established federal 

law”—meaning a violation of a U.S. Supreme Court holding. See White v. Woodall, 572 U.S. 

Case 1:19-cv-00834-DAD-JDP Document 11 Filed 02/28/20 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

415, 419 (2014). At this early stage, Rule 4 gives “courts an active role in summarily disposing 

of facially defective habeas petitions.” Ross v. Williams, 896 F.3d 958, 968 (9th Cir. 2018) 

(citation omitted). The rule also “imposes on courts the duty to screen out” petitions that are 

vague and conclusory. Id.

Discussion

Petitioner presented vague and conclusory allegations in his amended petition, which 

included a three-page portion of the six-page California habeas petition form. In his filing, 

petitioner states that he is seeking habeas relief because “a whole bunch of hating, prejudice, 

racist people don’t want to let me out.” ECF No. 6 at 2. Instead of stating his grounds for relief, 

petitioner refers the court to his “Let Freedom Ring” exhibit. Id. at 3. This exhibit is partially 

illegible, vague, conclusory, and fails to state grounds for habeas relief. Petitioner has also failed 

to state a request for relief. 

We will not construct a habeas claim for petitioner. See Pliler v. Ford, 542 U.S. 225, 226 

(2004) (noting that judges, “impartial decisionmakers,” may not give legal advice to pro se 

litigants). Considering the entirety of petitioner’s submissions to this court, he has failed to state 

a claim sufficient to pass Rule 4 screening. We recommend dismissal of his petition.

Certificate of Appealability

A petitioner seeking a writ of habeas corpus has no absolute right to appeal a district 

court’s denial of a petition; he may appeal only in limited circumstances. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253; 

Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 335-36 (2003). Rule 11 Governing Section 2254 Cases 

requires a district court to issue or deny a certificate of appealability when entering a final order 

adverse to a petitioner. See also Ninth Circuit Rule 22-1(a); United States v. Asrar, 116 F.3d 

1268, 1270 (9th Cir. 1997). A certificate of appealability will not issue unless a petitioner makes 

“a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). This 

standard requires the petitioner to show that “jurists of reason could disagree with the district

court’s resolution of his constitutional claims or that jurists could conclude the issues presented 

are adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further.” Miller-El, 537 U.S. at 327; accord 

Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). Here, petitioner has not made a substantial 

Case 1:19-cv-00834-DAD-JDP Document 11 Filed 02/28/20 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

showing of the denial of a constitutional right. Thus, we recommend that the court decline to 

issue a certificate of appealability.

Order

The clerk of court is ordered to assign this case to a district judge who will review these 

findings and recommendations.

Findings and Recommendations

For the foregoing reasons, we recommend that the court grant dismiss this case for failure 

to state a claim. These findings and recommendations are submitted to the U.S. district judge 

presiding over the case under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 304. Within fourteen 

days of the service of the findings and recommendations, the parties may file written objections to 

the findings and recommendations with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Any such 

objections must be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and 

Recommendations.” The presiding district judge will then review the findings and 

recommendations under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 28, 2020 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

No. 206.

Case 1:19-cv-00834-DAD-JDP Document 11 Filed 02/28/20 Page 3 of 3