Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-03549/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-03549-0/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

In Re. 

ROBERT CHRISTOPHER JIMENEZ,

Petitioner.

 /

No. C 06-3549 SI (pr)

ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH

LEAVE TO AMEND

INTRODUCTION

Robert Christopher Jimenez, currently in custody in the California State Prison - Solano,

filed this pro se action for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. His petition is

now before the court for review pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §2243 and Rule 4 of the Rules Governing

Section 2254 Cases. 

BACKGROUND

Jimenez's petition provides the following information. He was convicted in 2004 in Santa

Clara County of murder and apparently of being a felon in possession of a firearm. He was

sentenced on July 16, 2004 to 75 years to life in prison. Jimenez appealed. His conviction was

affirmed by the California Court of Appeal and his petition for review was denied by the

California Supreme Court. He then filed this action.

Case 3:06-cv-03549-SI Document 5 Filed 10/31/06 Page 1 of 4
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 earlier had ordered Jimenez to file an amendment naming the warden and to

pay the filing fee. See Aug. 2, 2006 Order. That order never reached petitioner due to a clerical

mistake, i.e., the docket sheet and envelope had the incorrect prisoner number for Jimenez. The

incorrect prisoner number caused the envelope containing the order to be returned undelivered.

The filing fee was paid as ordered, but the amendment was not filed. Because of the several

problems with the petition, the court now orders that petitioner file an amended petition to cure

all the defects, rather than an amendment that cures only the defect of the unnamed respondent.

2

DISCUSSION

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); see

also 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c)(3). A district court considering an application for a writ of habeas

corpus shall "award the writ or issue an order directing the respondent to show cause why the

writ should not be granted, unless it appears from the application that the applicant or person

detained is not entitled thereto." 28 U.S.C. § 2243. Summary dismissal is appropriate only

where the allegations in the petition are vague or conclusory, palpably incredible, or patently

frivolous or false. See Hendricks v. Vasquez, 908 F.2d 490, 491 (9th Cir. 1990).

The petition has several problems which require amendment. First, Jimenez did not

identify a proper respondent in his petition. The proper respondent for a prisoner challenging

a conviction is the warden of the prison in which the prisoner is housed. Jimenez therefore must

insert the name of the warden of his prison as the respondent on the first page of his amended

petition. If he does not name a proper respondent in his amended petition, the court will not

have jurisdiction over this case and will dismiss it. See Stanley v. California Supreme Court,

21 F.3d 359, 360 (9th Cir. 1994).1

Second, the petition is partially illegible. There are some words that the court simply

cannot read in the petition. Jimenez must use greater care in preparing his amended petition and

write more clearly. Although the court accepts handwritten documents from prisoners, those

documents must be legible. There is no possibility that the court will grant relief when it cannot

even read what the party is requesting. 

Case 3:06-cv-03549-SI Document 5 Filed 10/31/06 Page 2 of 4
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

Third, the petition is too lacking in detail to warrant a response from the respondent.

Jimenez contends that his attorney was ineffective, but he does not adequately explain the

specific deficiencies in counsel's performance or how the deficiencies impacted his trial. For

example, he states that counsel "failed to investigate of the circumstances of the case and explore

all avenues leading to facts relevant to the merits of the case." Petition, p. 8. Jimenez does not

identify any particular investigation that should have been performed, does not identify to what

defense(s) such an investigation would have been relevant, and does not explain how it would

have been relevant to any particular defense(s). Each of the various deficiencies of counsel is

similarly lacking in detail. Jimenez must file an amended petition in which he explains the

factual basis for his claims. Sometimes it is helpful for the petitioner to attach to his federal

habeas petition a copy of his state court appeal brief if he has asserted the claims in that brief that

he wants this court to consider.

Fourth, it is unclear whether state court remedies were exhausted as to all or any of the

claims presented in Jimenez's federal habeas petition. The exhaustion rule requires that a

prisoner in state custody who wishes to challenge collaterally in federal habeas proceedings

either the fact or length of his confinement must first exhaust state judicial remedies, either on

direct appeal or through collateral proceedings, by presenting the highest state court available

with a fair opportunity to rule on the merits of each and every claim he seeks to raise in federal

court. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b),(c); Rose v. Lundy, 455 U.S. 509, 515-16 (1982); Duckworth

v. Serrano, 454 U.S. 1, 3 (1981). The exhaustion-of-state-remedies doctrine reflects a policy of

federal-state comity to give the state "'the initial "opportunity to pass upon and correct" alleged

violations of its prisoners' federal rights.'" Picard v. Connor, 404 U.S. 270, 275 (1971) (citations

omitted). Jimenez did not answer the question on the form that asked if he had presented his

present claims in his state court appeal and listed the claims in the part of the petition that asked

if any of the claims had not been presented in state court. See Petition, pp. 3-4, 6. If he has not

exhausted his state court remedies, he should do so promptly to avoid having his habeas petition

dismissed as untimely under the habeas statute of limitations. See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d). 

Case 3:06-cv-03549-SI Document 5 Filed 10/31/06 Page 3 of 4
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

4

CONCLUSION 

For the foregoing reasons, the petition is DISMISSED with leave to amend. Jimenez

must file an amended petition no later than December 8, 2006. This action will be dismissed

if an amended petition is not filed by the deadline that cures the deficiencies identified in this

order.

The clerk shall correct the docket to reflect that Jimenez's CDC # is H-64687 and be sure

to use that number on the envelope in which this order is mailed to Jimenez. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: October 30, 2006 

 SUSAN ILLSTON

United States District Judge

Case 3:06-cv-03549-SI Document 5 Filed 10/31/06 Page 4 of 4