Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_16-cv-01325/USCOURTS-caed-1_16-cv-01325-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Melvin Dukes
Petitioner
Warden
Respondent

Document Text:

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MELVIN DUKES,

Petitioner,

v.

WARDEN,

Respondent.

Case No. 1:16-cv-01325 MJS (HC)

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THE

PETITION SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED 

FOR FAILURE TO STATE A COGNIZABLE

CLAIM 

[Doc. 1]

Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas 

corpus under the authority of 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 

Petitioner filed the instant petition for writ of habeas corpus on September 8, 

2016. (Pet., ECF No. 1.), The court is unable to determine Petitioner’s crime of 

conviction due to the lack of legibility of his petition and an inability to understand his

claims and factual assertions. (Id.) As best the Court can tell, Petitioner’s main assertion 

relates to a loss of property while incarcerated. (Id.) It does not appear that such claims 

implicate the fact or length of his detention. 

I. Discussion

A. Procedural Grounds for Summary Dismissal

Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases provides in pertinent part:

Case 1:16-cv-01325-DAD-MJS Document 4 Filed 09/21/16 Page 1 of 4
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

If it plainly appears from the petition and any attached exhibits that the 

petitioner is not entitled to relief in the district court, the judge must dismiss 

the petition and direct the clerk to notify the petitioner.

The Advisory Committee Notes to Rule 8 indicate that the court may dismiss a 

petition for writ of habeas corpus, either on its own motion under Rule 4, pursuant to the 

respondent’s motion to dismiss, or after an answer to the petition has been filed. A 

petition for habeas corpus should not be dismissed without leave to amend unless it 

appears that no tenable claim for relief can be pleaded were such leave granted. Jarvis 

v. Nelson, 440 F.2d 13, 14 (9th Cir. 1971).

B. Failure to State Cognizable Claim

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 habeas corpus petition is the correct method for a prisoner to challenge the 

“legality or duration” of his confinement. Badea v. Cox, 931 F.2d 573, 574 (9th Cir. 

1991), quoting, Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 485 (1973); Advisory Committee 

Notes to Rule 1 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. 

In contrast, a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 is the proper method 

for a prisoner to challenge the conditions of that confinement. McCarthy v. Bronson, 500 

U.S. 136, 141-42 (1991); Preiser, 411 U.S. at 499; Badea, 931 F.2d at 574; Advisory 

Committee Notes to Rule 1 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. 

Petitioner’s claims are unclear. The petition is hardy legible, and the Court is 

unable to read large sections of it. In many places Petitioner has attempted to write two 

lines of text per each line of the petition. In addition to Petitioner’s words being written 

too close together, to the extent the Court can read Petitioner’s claims, it is difficult to 

determine what Petitioner is attempting to assert. It appears that Petitioner claims that 

correctional officers have taken action contrary to state laws and regulations, but it does 

not appear that Petitioner has alleged violations of federal law. Therefore, even if his 

claims implicate the fact or duration of his confinement, it does not appear that he has

alleged a sufficient federal violation. A district court may entertain a petition for a writ of 

Case 1:16-cv-01325-DAD-MJS Document 4 Filed 09/21/16 Page 2 of 4
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

habeas corpus by a state prisoner only on the ground that the custody is in violation of 

the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States. 28 U.S.C. §§ 2254(a), 2241(c)(3); 

Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362, 375 n.7, 120 S. Ct. 1495, 146 L. Ed. 2d 389 (2000); 

Wilson v. Corcoran, 131 S. Ct. 13, 16, 178 L. Ed. 2d 276 (2010).

Federal habeas relief is not available to retry a state issue that does not rise to the 

level of a federal constitutional violation. Wilson v. Corcoran, 131 S.Ct. at 16 (2010); 

Estelle v. McGuire, 502 U.S. 62, 67-68, 112 S. Ct. 475, 116 L. Ed. 2d 385 (1991). 

Alleged errors in the application of state law are not cognizable in federal habeas 

corpus. Souch v. Schaivo, 289 F.3d 616, 623 (9th Cir. 2002) (an ex post facto claim 

challenging state court's discretionary decision concerning application of state 

sentencing law presented only state law issues and was not cognizable in a proceeding 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254); Langford v. Day, 110 F.3d 1380, 1389 (9th Cir. 1996). 

The Court accepts a state court's interpretation of state law. Langford, 110 F.3d at 1389.

In a habeas corpus proceeding, this Court is bound by the California Supreme Court's 

interpretation of California law unless the interpretation is deemed untenable or a veiled 

attempt to avoid review of federal questions. Murtishaw v. Woodford, 255 F.3d 926, 964 

(9th Cir. 2001).

Given the inability to decipher Petitioner petition or to identify a federal basis for 

his claims, the Court cannot find that he has presented claims entitled to relief by way of 

a federal petition for writ of habeas corpus. 

A petition for habeas corpus should not be dismissed without leave to amend 

unless it appears that no tenable claim for relief can be pleaded were such leave 

granted. Jarvis v. Nelson, 440 F.2d 13, 14 (9th Cir. 1971). As it is possible that a federal 

claim could be stated, Petitioner is provided the opportunity to file an amended petition 

to attempt to state a cognizable claim.

II. Order

Petitioner is ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE why the petition should not be 

dismissed for Petitioner's failure to state cognizable federal claims. Petitioner is 

Case 1:16-cv-01325-DAD-MJS Document 4 Filed 09/21/16 Page 3 of 4
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

ORDERED to file an amended petition for writ of habeas corpus within thirty (30) days of 

the date of service of this order. The amended petition must be more legible than the 

original to enable the Court to evaluate its merits. Plaintiff must write more clearly, type 

the petition or have someone write it out for him.

Petitioner is forewarned that failure to follow this order will result in dismissal of 

the petition pursuant to Local Rule 110.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 20, 2016 /s/Michael J. Seng 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:16-cv-01325-DAD-MJS Document 4 Filed 09/21/16 Page 4 of 4