Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_19-cv-00661/USCOURTS-caed-2_19-cv-00661-2/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
David Baughman
Respondent
Condalee Morris
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 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

CONDALEE MORRIS, 

Petitioner, 

v. 

DAVID BAUGHMAN, 

Respondent. 

No. 2:19-cv-661-TLN-EFB P 

ORDER 

 Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding without counsel. This action was opened when he 

filed a “petition for writ of habeas corpus” alleging procedural shortcomings in at least two prison 

disciplinary proceedings. ECF No. 1. The court previously, due to ambiguities in the petition, 

directed petitioner to state whether he intended this action to proceed as a habeas petition or as a 

collection of claims brought pursuant to section 1983. ECF No. 14. Petitioner responded and 

affirmed his intent to pursue a habeas action. ECF No. 15. The court has identified deficiencies 

in the petition and, prior to recommending dismissal, will provide petitioner a chance to address 

them. 

Application to Proceed in Forma Pauperis 

 Petitioner seeks leave to proceed in forma pauperis. ECF No. 12. He has made the 

required showing and his application will be granted. 

///// 

Case 2:19-cv-00661-TLN-EFB Document 17 Filed 02/11/20 Page 1 of 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 

2 

Screening 

I. Legal Standards 

The court must dismiss a habeas petition or portion thereof if the prisoner raises claims 

that are legally “frivolous or malicious” or fail to state a basis on which habeas relief may be 

granted. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1),(2). The court must dismiss a habeas petition “[i]f it plainly 

appears from the petition and any attached exhibits that the petitioner is not entitled to relief[.]” 

Rule 4, Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. 

 II. Analysis 

 The petition consists of several hand-written pages outlining petitioner’s claims and 

hundreds of pages of exhibits. As best the court can discern, petitioner alleges that he was not 

afforded due process with respect to three separate disciplinary convictions – one in August of 

2016 (ECF No. 1 at 9-10, 53), another in May of 2017 (id. at 18, 74-86), and a final one in July of 

2017 (id. at 26, 235-244). Challenging multiple convictions in a single habeas petition is 

impermissible, however. Under Rule 2(e) of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases, petitioner 

may challenge only one judgment in a federal habeas action. Challenging each of the three 

convictions described in this action would require him to file three separate petitions. 

 Second, it does not appear petitioner exhausted these claims in state court prior to filing 

this federal petition. Before filing a federal habeas petition, a petitioner attacking a state 

conviction must exhaust his claims by presenting them to the highest state court. See Baldwin v. 

Reese, 541 U.S. 27, 29 (2004). There is no indication that petitioner has done so. On the habeas 

form, petitioner has marked “yes” to the question of whether he has filed any state habeas 

petitions attacking these convictions. ECF No. 1 at 3. He failed, however, to offer any 

information regarding those cases in the space the form provides for that purpose.1

 Id. And the 

court has reviewed the voluminous exhibits attached to the petition – many of them pertain to 

prison appeals, but none derive from state court filings. 

 1

The form requests the name of court, case number, date filed, grounds raised, date of 

decision, result, and whether an evidentiary hearing was held. ECF No. 1 at 3-4. Petitioner 

provided none of that information. 

Case 2:19-cv-00661-TLN-EFB Document 17 Filed 02/11/20 Page 2 of 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 

3 

 Rather than recommending immediate dismissal, the court will afford petitioner an 

opportunity to address these deficiencies. Petitioner should, within thirty days from the date of 

service of this order, file an amended petition indicating which of his three convictions he wishes 

to challenge in this action.2 The amended petition should also indicate whether he has exhausted 

his claims regarding that conviction in state court. 

Conclusion 

 1. Petitioner’s application to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 12) is GRANTED; and 

 2. Within thirty days from the date of service of this order, petitioner shall submit an 

amended petition which addresses the deficiencies identified supra. His failure to do so will 

result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed. 

DATED: February 11, 2020. 

 2

 His claims regarding the other convictions will be recommended for dismissal without 

prejudice so that petitioner may, if he chooses, pursue them in separate actions. 

Case 2:19-cv-00661-TLN-EFB Document 17 Filed 02/11/20 Page 3 of 3