Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_19-cv-02322/USCOURTS-caed-2_19-cv-02322-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
William Ray Barton
Petitioner
Josie Gastelo
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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

WILLIAM RAY BARTON,

Petitioner,

v.

JOSIE GASTELO,

Respondent.

No. 2:19-CV-2322-DMC-P

ORDER

Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this petition for a writ of 

habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Pending before the court is petitioner’s petition for a 

writ of habeas corpus (ECF No. 1).

Rule 2(c) of the Federal Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases requires that every 

habeas corpus petition must: (1) specify all the grounds for relief; (2) state the facts supporting 

each ground for relief; (3) state the relief requested; (4) be printed, typewritten, or legibly 

handwritten; and (5) be signed under penalty of perjury. In the instant case, the petition fails to 

meet one or more of these requirements. In this case, petitioner has not stated any grounds for 

relief. Rather, petitioner merely cites to three cases filed in the Central District of California 

against the Board of Parole Hearings. See ECF No. 1, pg. 5. Petitioner does not allege any facts 

to support any particular claim of error with respect to his underlying criminal proceedings. 

/ / /

Case 2:19-cv-02322-DMC Document 8 Filed 01/08/20 Page 1 of 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

2

Not only does petitioner’s petition fail to inform the court of the grounds for relief 

claim and supporting facts, it fails to establish proper venue. To the extent petitioner is 

challenging a decision to deny parole, venue would be appropriate in the district of confinement, 

in this case the Central District of California because petitioner is confined in San Luis Obispo. 

See Rosas v. Nielsen, 428 F.3d 1229, 1232 (9th Cir. 2005) (denial of parole is “a decision 

‘regarding the execution’ of” a prison sentence); Dunne v. Henman, 875 F.2d 244, 249 (9th Cir. 

1989) (“The proper forum to challenge the execution of a sentence is the district where the 

prisoner is confined”). The current petition is unclear as to whether it is in fact challenging a 

parole determination. Petitioner’s citation to cases against the Board of Parole Hearings, 

however, suggests the possibility that a challenge to parole determination is intended. If so, 

venue would not be proper in this court. 

Petitioner will be provided an opportunity to file an amended petition which 

satisfies Rule 2(c). Petitioner is warned that failure to comply with this order may result in the 

dismissal of this action. See Local Rule 110.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Petitioner’s petition for writ of habeas corpus (ECF No. 1) is dismissed 

with leave to amend; 

2. Petitioner shall file a first amended petition on the form employed by this 

court, and which satisfies the requirements of Rule 2(c) of the Federal Rules Governing Section 

2254 Cases, within 30 days of the date of this order; and 

3. The Clerk of the Court is directed to send petitioner the court’s form 

habeas corpus application.

Dated: January 8, 2020

____________________________________

DENNIS M. COTA

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:19-cv-02322-DMC Document 8 Filed 01/08/20 Page 2 of 2