Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_16-cv-00421/USCOURTS-caed-1_16-cv-00421-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
S. Frauenheim
Respondent
Carlos Sanchez
Petitioner

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

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 on March 30, 2016. (Doc. 1). 

DISCUSSION

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 petitioner is not entitled to relief." Rule 4 of the Rules 

Governing 2254 Cases; Hendricks v. Vasquez, 908 F.2d 490 (9th Cir. 1990). Otherwise, the Court 

will order Respondent to respond to the petition. Rule 5 of the Rules governing § 2254 Cases.

A federal court may only grant a petition for writ of habeas corpus if a petitioner can show that 

“he is in custody in violation of the Constitution . . . .” 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (a). A petition for writ of 

habeas corpus must therefore specify the grounds for relief. Rule 2(c) of the Rules Governing Section 

CARLOS SANCHEZ,

 Petitioner,

v.

S. FRAUENHEIM,

Respondent.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 1:16-cv-00421-JLT

ORDER REQUIRING PETITIONER TO SUBMIT 

AN AMENDED PETITION

THIRTY DAY DEADLINE

ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF THE COURT TO 

SEND PETITIONER A FORM FOR FILING 

HABEAS CORPUS PETITION PURSUANT TO 28 

U.S.C. § 2254

Case 1:16-cv-00421-DAD-JLT Document 6 Filed 04/19/16 Page 1 of 3
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

2254 Cases. The petition must also allege the facts surrounding the petitioner’s incarceration. 28 

U.S.C. § 2242. The petitioner must make specific factual allegations that would entitle him to habeas 

corpus relief if they are true. O’Bremski v. Maass, 915 F.2d 418, 420 (9th Cir. 1990); United States v. 

Poopola, 881 F.2d 811, 812 (9th Cir. 1989). 

In addition, a petition presented in pro se must be upon the form approved by the court. Rule 2 

of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases; Local Rule 81-190. This rule ensures that all information 

needed is before the court. Each ground for relief must be clearly stated and allege what federal 

constitutional violation has occurred, along with providing facts that support the grounds for relief. If 

a petition contains no grounds entitling the petitioner to habeas corpus relief, the court must dismiss 

the petition. Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. 

Filing an incomplete form petition is inadequate, and requires the Court to expend considerable 

time and resources attempting to determine which claims petitioner seeks to raise before this Court. It 

is unreasonable to expect the Court to take on such a task when the responsibility to inform the Court 

lies solely with Petitioner.1 The proper use of the form petition results in administrative convenience 

of benefit to both Petitioner and the Court. 

Here, Petitioner has filed a form petition that is seriously incomplete. The petition submitted 

by Petitioner contains only pages 2 and 5 of the form petition. The other pages were not filed with the 

original petition. These omitted pages are necessary for this Court to consider Petitioner’s claims as 

they contain information vital to the Court’s ability to perform its preliminary screening function 

regarding timeliness, exhaustion, and allegations of constitutional error. Without this information, the 

Court cannot proceed to the merits of the petition. Thus, Petitioner must resubmit the form petition 

once it has been completely filled out as stated on the form.

Moreover, upon a close examination of the petition, the Court has discovered that the petition 

does not contain an original signature under penalty of perjury. Petitioner did not sign the form 

petition on page 7, as required, likely due to the fact that page 7 was not included in the petition. 

Hence, there is no signature indicating that the allegations in the petition are made under penalty of 

 

1

Petitioners are not precluded from submitting attachments or exhibits to the petition, however, the Court will not 

determine a petitioner's claims for him based solely on his attachments. 

Case 1:16-cv-00421-DAD-JLT Document 6 Filed 04/19/16 Page 2 of 3
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

perjury. Local Rule 131 requires a document submitted to the Court for filing to include an original 

signature. In addition, Rule 2 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases requires a petition for writ 

of habeas corpus to “be signed under penalty of perjury by the petitioner.”

For all of the foregoing reasons, the instant petition in deficient. Petitioner will be required to 

file an amended petition containing sufficient information for the Court to proceed with the case. The 

Clerk of the Court will be directed to send Petitioner a blank form which Petitioner should use in filing 

an amended petition. Accordingly, the Court ORDERS:

1. The instant petition for writ of habeas corpus is hereby DISMISSED. Petitioner is 

GRANTED 30 days from the date of service of this Order to file a first amended petition 

that complies with this order. 

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

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

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

Order of Dismissal or a Recommendation that the petition be dismissed pursuant to Local Rule 

110.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 19, 2016 /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:16-cv-00421-DAD-JLT Document 6 Filed 04/19/16 Page 3 of 3