Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_16-cv-01159/USCOURTS-caed-1_16-cv-01159-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Scott Frauenheim
Respondent
Steven Stacey Pombo
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

Because the petitioner has failed to demonstrate he has exhausted his claims with the 

California Supreme Court and he has failed to sign the petition under penalty of perjury, the petition is

DISMISSED with leave to file an amended petition within 30 days.

I. 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 

STEVEN STACEY POMBO,

 Petitioner,

v.

SCOTT FRAUENHEIM, Warden,

Respondent.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 1:16-cv-01159-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-01159-AWI-JLT Document 5 Filed 08/11/16 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). 

II. Exhaustion of Remedies

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 (1991); Rose v. Lundy, 455 U.S. 509, 518 (1982); Buffalo v. Sunn, 854 F.2d 1158, 1163 (9th

Cir. 1988). 

A petitioner can satisfy the exhaustion requirement by providing the highest state court with a 

full and fair opportunity to consider each claim before presenting it to the federal court. Duncan v. 

Henry, 513 U.S. 364, 365 (1995); Picard v. Connor, 404 U.S. 270, 276 (1971); Johnson v. Zenon, 88 

F.3d 828, 829 (9th Cir. 1996). In this instance, the highest state court would be the California Supreme 

Court. A federal court will find that the highest state court was given a full and fair opportunity to 

hear a claim if the petitioner has presented the highest state court with the claim's factual and legal 

basis. Duncan, 513 U.S. at 365 (legal basis); Kenney v. Tamayo-Reyes, 504 U.S. 1, 112 S.Ct. 1715, 

1719 (1992) (factual basis). 

Additionally, the petitioner must have specifically told the state court that he was raising a 

federal constitutional claim. Duncan, 513 U.S. at 365-66; Lyons v. Crawford, 232 F.3d 666, 669 (9th 

Cir.2000), amended, 247 F.3d 904 (2001); Hiivala v. Wood, 195 F.3d 1098, 1106 (9th Cir.1999); 

Keating v. Hood, 133 F.3d 1240, 1241 (9th Cir.1998). 

Petitioner has alleged that he has presented his claims to the California Court of Appeal; 

however, he has not alleged or provided any information to support a finding that he has exhausted

those claims by presenting them to the California Supreme Court. Without exhaustion of the claims,

the Court must dismiss the petition. In any amended petition, Petitioner must provide the specific 

information regarding what claims he has raised in the California Supreme Court, when those claims 

were denied, and, if possible, provide copies of the state high court’s orders denying those claims.

///

Case 1:16-cv-01159-AWI-JLT Document 5 Filed 08/11/16 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

III. No Signature Under Penalty Of Perjury

Upon further examination of the petition, the Court has discovered that the petition does not 

contain an original signature. Petitioner did not sign the form petition on page 16. 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.” If Petitioner chooses to submit an amended 

petition, it must be signed under penalty of perjury and dated for the Court to consider it.

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

file an amended petition correcting the defects identified in this order. 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. 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: August 10, 2016 /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:16-cv-01159-AWI-JLT Document 5 Filed 08/11/16 Page 3 of 3