Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_16-cv-00173/USCOURTS-caed-1_16-cv-00173-2/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Omar Cebrero
Petitioner
S. Frauenheim
Respondent

Document Text:

1

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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Along with the petition, which raises twelve grounds for relief, Petitioner has requested a stay 

and abey order to exhaust grounds eight through twelve in state court. For the following reasons, the 

Court will order that Petitioner file an amended petition.

DISCUSSION

Rule 2 of the "Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases" provide 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), 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Additionally, the Advisory Committee Note to these rules explains that: 

"'(N)otice' pleading is not sufficient, for the petition is expected to state facts that point to a 'real 

OMAR CEBRERO,

 Petitioner,

v.

S. FRAUENHEIM,

Respondent.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 1:16-cv-00173-DAD-JLT

ORDER REQUIRING PETITIONER TO SUBMIT 

A FIRST AMENDED PETITION

ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF THE COURT TO 

SEND PETITIONER A FORM FOR FILING 

HABEAS CORPUS PETITION PURSUANT TO 28 

U.S.C. § 2254

ORDER DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE 

PETITION’S MOTION FOR STAY

THIRTY-DAY DEADLINE

Case 1:16-cv-00173-DAD-JLT Document 12 Filed 02/09/16 Page 1 of 4
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

possibility of constitutional error.'" 28 U.S.C. § 2254, p. 1111; Quoted approvingly in Blackledge v. 

Allison, 431 U.S. 63, 75 n.7 (1977). 

A preliminary review of the petition shows that Petitioner has not completed the petition nor 

has he separately listed each ground for relief along with a brief statement of facts supporting each 

ground. Petitioner adequately explains grounds one through seven, which appear to be exhausted. 

However, for grounds eight through twelve, the unexhausted claims, Petitioner directs the Court not to 

another part of the petition, or even an attached addendum to the petition, but to an entirely separate

motion for stay and abeyance. In that motion for stay and abeyance, Petitioner explains ground ten 

through twelve in sufficient detail, but grounds eight and nine do not contain any explanation, either 

legal or factual, whatsoever. Instead, Petitioner attaches numerous letters, documents, and filings, 

each apparently included to support his contentions in grounds eight and nine. Unfortunately, since 

Petitioner has not explained to the Court what the contentions in grounds eight and nine actually are, 

the Court is not in a position to allow those claims to proceed. 

Petitioner must submit an amended petition filling out the portion of the petition which sets 

forth a brief statement of the ground for relief and supporting facts thereto. The Court stresses the 

impropriety of filing a petition that contains blank spaces or “not applicable” or, in this case, 

“please refer to stay and abeyance motion,” where the descriptions of the claims are to be found, 

and then refers the reader to a separate document. This type of filing requires the court to 

expend a significant amount of time attempting to determine what Petitioner’s claims are and 

whether he provides sufficient facts to support them. Such information can be provided in a 

brief manner by completing the form petition. 

Moreover, it is not the duty of federal courts to try to determine what might constitute a claim 

for relief or which claims Petitioner might intend to bring before the Court. Such duty is upon the 

individual who asserts a denial of his constitutional rights. The Court will not read through several 

hundreds of pages in order to determine what claims Petitioner might wish to bring. The form 

petition’s primary purpose is to make the listing of Petitioner’s claims easy and to enable the 

Court to make a determination that the claims and supporting facts allege a proper denial of a 

constitutional right. The Court cannot proceed with the case until such claims are made clear. Thus, 

Case 1:16-cv-00173-DAD-JLT Document 12 Filed 02/09/16 Page 2 of 4
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

Petitioner must set forth a sufficiently clear statement of his claims and a brief statement of supporting 

facts to enable a court to understand his argument and to render a decision on the matter.

Finally, regarding Petitioner’s request for a stay and abeyance, the Court must deny that 

motion without prejudice because Petitioner has not explained the substantive claims contained within 

grounds eight and nine. Under Rhines v. Weber, 544 U.S. 269 (2005), the Supreme Court had 

determined that federal courts may now issue “stay and abey” orders under appropriate circumstances 

to permit petitioners to exhaust unexhausted claims before proceeding with their federal petitions. 

Rhines, 544 U.S. at 276-277. In so holding, the Supreme Court noted that the procedure should be 

“available only in limited circumstances.” 544 U.S. at 277. Specifically, the Court said it was 

appropriate only when (1) good cause exists for petitioner’s failure to exhaust; (2) petitioner’s 

unexhausted claims are not “plainly meritless” and (3) there is no indication that petitioner engaged in 

“abusive litigation tactics or intentional delay.” Id. at 277-278; Robbins v. Carey, 481 F.3d 1143, 

1149 (9th Cir. 2005). When a petitioner has met these requirements, his interest in obtaining federal 

review of his claims outweighs the competing interests in finality and speedy resolution of federal 

petitions. Rhines, 544 U.S. at 278. 

Obviously, the second requirement of Rhines, i.e., that the Court has determined that the 

proposed unexhausted claims are not “plainly meritless,” requires that this Court examine the factual 

and legal basis of each unexhausted claim to determine whether a stay is warranted. In the body of the 

petition, Petitioner notes that ground eight involves a claim of innocence based on newly discovered 

evidence and ground nine involves a lack of access to juror identification information. (Doc. 1, p. 18; 

20). However, Petitioner offers no explanation or details that would permit the Court to determine, for 

purposes of a stay, whether such bare-bones contentions are “plainly meritless” or not. Accordingly, 

Petitioner may submit an amended motion for stay and abeyance along with the First Amended 

Petitioner and the Court will consider both. However, Petitioner is reminded that he must 

completely fill out the form for the First Amended Petitioner and he must include adequate legal 

and factual information for the Court to conduct its preliminary screening function to determine 

whether a cognizable federal claim has been stated and, if a motion for stay is filed, to also 

determine whether such claims are “plainly meritless.” 

Case 1:16-cv-00173-DAD-JLT Document 12 Filed 02/09/16 Page 3 of 4
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

ORDER

Accordingly, the Court ORDERS:

1. Petitioner is GRANTED 30 days from the date of service of this Order to SUBMIT a 

FIRST AMENDED PETITION that clearly lists each ground for relief petitioner 

intends to raise in this Court along with a brief statement of supporting facts. The 

amended petition should be clearly titled “FIRST AMENDED PETITION,” 

contain the appropriate case number, and be an original signed under penalty of 

perjury. Petitioner should also note that every pleading to which an amendment or 

supplement is permitted must be retyped and filed so that it is complete in itself 

without reference to the prior or superseded pleading. Local Rule 220. 

2. The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to send petitioner a blank form petition for 

petitioners filing pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254.

3. Petitioner’s motion for a stay and abeyance is denied without prejudice to renew 

the motion upon the filing of the First Amended Petition.

Petitioner is forewarned that his failure to comply with this order may result in an order or 

Recommendation that the petition be dismissed pursuant to Local Rule 110.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 9, 2016 /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:16-cv-00173-DAD-JLT Document 12 Filed 02/09/16 Page 4 of 4