Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-02081/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-02081-3/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Aloysius P. Franklin
Petitioner
E. Valenzuela
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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ALOYSIUS P. FRANKLIN,

Petitioner,

v.

E. VALENZUELA,

Respondent.

No. 2:15-cv-2081 GEB CKD P

ORDER

Before the court for screening is petitioner’s second amended petition seeking relief 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. (ECF No. 12.) Petitioner was directed to include only exhausted 

claims in his second amended petition. (ECF Nos. 10 & 13.)

As petitioner has not used the court’s form for an application for writ of habeas corpus, it 

is not clear which of his current claims have been exhausted in the state courts. The court will not 

order service of a petition on respondent unless it is reasonably certain that all claims therein have 

been exhausted.1

Moreover, Habeas Rule 2(c) requires that a petition 1) specify all grounds of relief 

available to the petitioner; 2) state the facts supporting each ground; and 3) state the relief 

requested. Notice pleading is not sufficient; rather, the petition must state facts that point to a real 

 

1

The exhaustion of state court remedies is a prerequisite to the granting of a petition for writ of 

habeas corpus. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(1). 

Case 2:15-cv-02081-GEB-CKD Document 14 Filed 03/16/16 Page 1 of 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

2

possibility of constitutional error.” Rule 4, Advisory Committee Notes, 1976 Adoption; see

Blackledge v. Allison, 431 U.S. 63, 75 n. 7 (1977). Allegations in a petition that are vague, 

conclusory, or palpably incredible are subject to summary dismissal. Hendricks v. Vasquez, 908 

F.2d 490, 491 (9th Cir. 1990). Here, the petition does not meet the pleading requirements of Rule 

2(c). 

For these reasons, the court will summarily dismiss the second amended petition. 

Petitioner will be granted thirty days to file a third amended petition that complies with Rule 2(c) 

and all other applicable rules. 

Therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Second Amended Petition (ECF No. 12) is dismissed with leave to amend within 

thirty days from the date of this order;2

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

“Third Amended Petition”; 

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

writ of habeas corpus; and 

4. Failure to timely file a Third Amended Petition will result in a recommendation that 

this case be closed. 

Dated: March 16, 2016

2 / fran2081.114

 

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

subject to dismissal as untimely.

_____________________________________

CAROLYN K. DELANEY

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:15-cv-02081-GEB-CKD Document 14 Filed 03/16/16 Page 2 of 2