Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_08-cv-00116/USCOURTS-caed-1_08-cv-00116-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Mario A. Melchionne
Petitioner
James E. Tilton
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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MARIO A. MELCHIONNE,

Petitioner,

v.

JAMES E. TILTON,

Respondent.

 /

1:08-cv-00116 OWW DLB HC

ORDER REGARDING PETITION FOR WRIT

OF HABEAS CORPUS, GRANTING MOTION

TO FILE SUPPLEMENTAL PETITION,

GRANTING LEAVE TO FILE SECOND

AMENDED PETITION AND DIRECTING

CLERK OF COURT TO SEND BLANK § 2254

FORM PETITION

[Docs. 1, 6]

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

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 

Petitioner filed the instant petition for writ of habeas corpus on January 18, 2008. (Court

Doc. 1.) On February 6, 2008, Petitioner filed a motion for leave to file a supplemental petition,

along with the supplement to the petition. (Court Doc. 6.) The Court will address both petitions

in the instant order. 

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

Case 1:08-cv-00116-DMS -BLM Document 8 Filed 03/04/08 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

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

Blackledge v. Allison, 431 U.S. 63, 75 n.7, 97 S.Ct. 1621 (1977). In addition, Rule 4 of the

Rules Governing § 2254 Cases requires the Court to make a preliminary review of each petition

for writ of habeas corpus. The Court must dismiss a petition "[i]f it plainly appears from the face

of the petition . . . that the petition is not entitled to relief." Rule 4 of the Rules Governing 2254

Cases; see also Hendricks v. Vasquez, 908 F.2d 490 (9th Cir. 1990).

 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. 

In the initial petition, it appears that Petitioner is challenging a California Department of

Corrections and Rehabilitation Rules Violation Report for murder, issued March 20, 2005. 

Petitioner contends that he was framed for the murder, as he was placed in a cell with another

inmate who posed a threat to each others safety. Petitioner contends that he was denied a full

hearing regarding the violation, he did not have a three member panel, was denied the right to

present documentary evidence, and was denied the right to call witnesses and review confidential

information. Petitioner further contends that he has been denied parole because of the Rules

Violation Report. In addition, Petitioner contends that he was transferred to a different prison in

retaliation and is being subjected to atypical and significant hardship. 

In the supplement to the petition, it appears that Petitioner is challenging the Kings

County Superior Court murder conviction arising from the same factual circumstances as the

Rules Violation Report. Petitioner contends that on January 22, 2007, he was fraudulently

induced into accepting a plea agreement on the murder charges. He contends his defense counsel

Case 1:08-cv-00116-DMS -BLM Document 8 Filed 03/04/08 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

was ineffective by failing to investigate mitigating evidence and failing to file proper discovery

motions. In addition, Petitioner contends that his 75-years-to-life sentence violated his right to a

jury trial as he never admitted the prior convictions and he was not allowed to present any

mitigating evidence. 

It is not quite clear what Petitioner is challenging in the current petition. Petitioner states

that he received a Rules Violation Report, was placed in administrative segregation, was denied

due process, was transferred to a different prison in retaliation, was denied parole, and was

sentenced to 75-years-to-life in state court. It appears that Petitioner is attempting to challenge

the rules violation report, the resulting hearing, the placement in administrative segregation, the

transfer to a different prison, the denial of parole, and the murder conviction in the state court. 

Petitioner is advised that he may not challenge several different decisions in a single petition; he

must challenge one decision per habeas petition. For instance, if Petitioner is seeking to

challenge the rules violation report, resulting hearing, and resulting sanctions, his denial of

parole, and his state court conviction for murder, he must file three separate petitions. Separate

petitions are required because exhaustion, venue, procedural default issues, statute of limitations,

mootness concerns, and remedies are different for each decision. In addition, as outlined above,

to the extent Petitioner is attempting to challenge the conditions of his confinement he must do

so by way of a § 1983 civil rights complaint. 

The court will grant Petitioner leave to determine which decision he wishes to challenge

in the instant petition. Petitioner is advised that whichever decision he decides to challenge, he

must have exhausted the state court remedies with respect to those claims. A petitioner who is in

state custody and wishes to collaterally challenge his conviction by a petition for writ of habeas

corpus must exhaust state judicial remedies. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(1). The exhaustion doctrine is

based on comity to the state court and gives the state court the initial opportunity to correct the

state's alleged constitutional deprivations. Coleman v. Thompson, 501 U.S. 722, 731, 111 S.Ct.

2546, 2554-55 (1991); Rose v. Lundy, 455 U.S. 509, 518, 102 S.Ct. 1198, 1203 (1982); Buffalo

v. Sunn, 854 F.2d 1158, 1163 (9 Cir. 1988). Exhaustion requires the fair presentation of claims th

to the highest state court, i.e. the California Supreme Court. Jackson v. Cupp, 693 F.2d 867, 869

Case 1:08-cv-00116-DMS -BLM Document 8 Filed 03/04/08 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

(9 Cir. 1982). th

 Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Petitioner is GRANTED thirty (30) days from the date of service of this Order to

SUBMIT a SECOND AMENDED PETITION that clearly indicates which single

decision he intends to challenge in the instant petition and provide a brief

statement of each claim and the supporting facts. The amended petition should be

clearly and boldly titled “AMENDED PETITION,” contain the appropriate case

number, and be an original signed under penalty of perjury; 

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

petitioners filing pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254; and,

3. Petitioner is forewarned that his failure to comply with this order may result in a

Recommendation that the petition be dismissed pursuant to Local Rule 11-110.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: March 3, 2008 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

3b142a UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:08-cv-00116-DMS -BLM Document 8 Filed 03/04/08 Page 4 of 4