Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_16-cv-00621/USCOURTS-caed-1_16-cv-00621-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Danny Charles Barnes
Petitioner
Warden State Prison Sacramento
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

The Court has reviewed the petition for writ of habeas corpus filed in this case. It fails to state 

any grounds for relief and is unintelligible. Thus, the Court ORDERS Petitioner to file an amended 

complaint.

A. Procedural Grounds for Summary Dismissal.

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

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 

DANNY CHARLES BARNES,

 Petitioner,

v.

WARDEN STATE PRISON 

SACRAMENTO,

Respondent.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 1:16-cv-00621-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-00621-DAD-JLT Document 3 Filed 05/05/16 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

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. Insufficient Information And Failure To State A Cognizable Habeas Claim.

Rule 2 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases provides 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), Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. Petitioner must also clearly state the relief sought in 

the petition. Id. Additionally, the Advisory Committee Notes to Rule 4 explains that “...’[N]otice’

pleading is not sufficient, for the petition is expected to state facts that point to a ‘real possibility of 

constitutional error.’” Advisory Committee Notes to Rule 4; see Blackledge v. Allison, 431 U.S. 63, 

75, n. 7, 97 S.Ct. 1621 (1977). 

The petition contains no claims and only sparse information. The first page of the form 

petition indicates that Petitioner was convicted in the Los Angeles Superior Court on some unspecified 

date. In every other space provided on the form, Petitioner answers either with his name and CDCR 

number, a reference to the Los Angeles Superior Court, or “yes.” Although Petitioner signs the 

petition, it is dated as “2016, 2017, 2018.” 

The petition does not meet basic pleading requirements for a federal habeas corpus proceeding. 

Petitioner does not inform the Court of the date and nature of his criminal conviction, the sentence 

imposed or any chronological information regarding a direct appeal. Additionally, in the spaces 

provided for listing claims, Petitioner responds with “yes, written multiple times. In other words, the 

petition contains no claims and contains no information that would permit the Court to perform its 

function of screening the petition for technical sufficiency, e.g., timeliness, exhaustion, etc. The Court 

is unable even to determine whether venue is proper in this Court. Thus, the petition fails to comply 

with the requirements of Rule 2(c). Accordingly, Petitioner will be required to submit a First 

Amended Petition in which he clearly and succinctly sets forth all of his claims, together with 

supporting factual allegations, in order for this case to proceed. Accordingly, the Court ORDERS:

1. The instant petition for writ of habeas corpus is DISMISSED with leave to amend. 

Petitioner is GRANTED 30 days from the date of service of this order to file a first 

Case 1:16-cv-00621-DAD-JLT Document 3 Filed 05/05/16 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

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: May 5, 2016 /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:16-cv-00621-DAD-JLT Document 3 Filed 05/05/16 Page 3 of 3