Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-03543/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-03543-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Derral G. Adams
Respondent
Vrezh Papazyan
Petitioner

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

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

VREZH PAPAZYAN, 

Petitioner,

v.

 DERRAL G. ADAMS, 

Respondent. /

No. C 05-3543 JSW (PR)

ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH

LEAVE TO AMEND

 

Petitioner, currently incarcerated at CSATF/State Prison located in Corcoran,

California, filed this action seeking a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254

challenging his Monterey County Superior Court conviction for possession of narcotics

paraphernalia in prison. In response to the Court Clerk’s letter to Petitioner advising him

that he had not paid the fee or filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis,

Petitioner had sent a letter to the Court that he sent a “trust account withdrawal order” to

the facility and he does not know why the funds were not send. However, the Court is not

in receipt of Petitioner’s payment. Petitioner must either pay the fee or provide the Court

with proof of payment within thirty (30) days or this matter will be dismissed.

The petition is now before the court for review pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §2243 and

Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. The petition contain claims regarding

the imposition of Petitioner’s sentence and ineffective assistance of trial counsel. 

DISCUSSION

A. Standard of Review

This court may entertain a petition for writ of habeas corpus "in behalf of a person

Case 3:05-cv-03543-JSW Document 3 Filed 04/24/06 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

in custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court only on the ground that he is in

custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States." 28

U.S.C. § 2254(a); Rose v. Hodges, 423 U.S. 19, 21 (1975). 

A district court shall "award the writ or issue an order directing the respondent to

show cause why the writ should not be granted, unless it appears from the application that

the applicant or person detained is not entitled thereto." 28 U.S.C. § 2243. Summary

dismissal is appropriate only where the allegations in the petition are vague or conclusory,

palpably incredible, or patently frivolous or false. See Hendricks v. Vasquez, 908 F.2d

490, 491 (9th Cir. 1990) (quoting Blackledge v. Allison, 431 U.S. 63, 75-76 (1977)). 

B. Petitioner’s Claims

The petition contains three separate claims. However, the petition has a critical

defect: the petition does not mention any violation of a federal right with regard to any of

the claims he wishes to raise, except possibly claim three in which Petitioner alleges

ineffective assistance of counsel (a Sixth Amendment violation) as Petitioner cites

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) in support of that claim. 

A person in custody pursuant to the judgment of a state court can obtain a federal

writ of habeas corpus only on the ground that he is in custody in violation of the

Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a). In other

words, a writ of habeas corpus is available under § 2254(a) "only on the basis of some

transgression of federal law binding on the state courts." Middleton v. Cupp, 768 F.2d

1083, 1085 (9th Cir. 1985) (citing Engle v. Isaac, 456 U.S. 107, 119 (1982)), cert. denied,

478 U.S. 1021 (1986). It is unavailable for violations of state law or for alleged error in

the interpretation or application of state law. See Estelle v. McGuire, 502 U.S. 62, 67-68

(1991); Engle, 456 U.S. at 119; Peltier v. Wright, 15 F.3d 860, 861-62 (9th Cir. 1994). 

With regard to the sentencing claims, state sentencing courts must be accorded

wide latitude in their decisions as to punishment. See Walker v. Endell, 850 F.2d 470,

476 (9th Cir. 1987), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 926, and cert. denied, 488 U.S. 981 (1988). 

Generally, therefore, a federal court may not review a state sentence that is within

Case 3:05-cv-03543-JSW Document 3 Filed 04/24/06 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

statutory limits. See id. There are exceptions under the Due Process Clause and the

Eighth Amendment, however. Petitioner can amend his petition to allege federal claims

regarding the imposition of sentence in violation of the constitution. However, he must

also have exhausted his state court remedies as to such claims. 

A prisoner in state custody who wishes to challenge either the fact or length of his 

confinement by filing a federal petition for writ of habeas corpus must first exhaust state

judicial remedies, either on direct appeal or through collateral proceedings, by presenting

the highest state court available with a fair opportunity to rule on the merits of each and

every issue he seeks to raise in federal court. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b),(c); Granberry v.

Greer, 481 U.S. 129, 133-34 (1987). The instant petition must be dismissed for failure to

state a cognizable claim for federal habeas relief. However, Petitioner will be given leave

to amend to cure this defect.

CONCLUSION 

For the foregoing reasons and for good cause shown, this action is dismissed with

leave to file an amended petition within thirty days of the date of this order in which

Petitioner presents only claims for violations of his rights under the laws, treaties, or

Constitution of the United States. Each and every such claim must have been presented

to the California Supreme Court before it may be asserted in a federal habeas action. The

amended petition must contain the caption and civil case number used in this order and

the words AMENDED PETITION on the first page. Failure to file an amended petition

by the deadline will result in dismissal of this action.

Petitioner must also pay the filing fee in this matter or provide proof to the Court

that he has previously paid the fee. Failure to do so will result in dismissal of this action.

It is Petitioner's responsibility to prosecute this case. He must keep the Court

informed of any change of address by filing a separate paper with the clerk headed

“Notice of Change of Address.” He must comply with any orders of the Court within the

time allowed, or ask for an extension of that time. Failure to do so may result in the

dismissal of this action for failure to prosecute pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil

Case 3:05-cv-03543-JSW Document 3 Filed 04/24/06 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

Procedure 41(b). See Martinez v. Johnson, 104 F.3d 769, 772 (5th Cir. 1997) (Rule 41(b)

applicable in habeas cases). 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: April 24, 2006

 

JEFFREY S. WHITE

United States District Judge

Case 3:05-cv-03543-JSW Document 3 Filed 04/24/06 Page 4 of 4