Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_19-cv-02948/USCOURTS-cand-3_19-cv-02948-2/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Koenig
Respondent
David B. Portee
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

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DAVID B. PORTEE,

Petitioner,

v.

KOENIG,

Respondent.

Case No. 19-cv-02948-JD 

ORDER RE MOTION TO 

DISMISS

Petitioner, a California prisoner, has filed a pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Petitioner was convicted in Santa Clara County, which is in this 

district, so venue is proper here. See 28 U.S.C. § 2241(d). He has paid the filing fee.

DISCUSSION

STANDARD OF REVIEW

The Court may consider a petition for writ of habeas corpus “in behalf of a person 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). Habeas corpus petitions must meet heightened pleading 

requirements. McFarland v. Scott, 512 U.S. 849, 856 (1994). An application for a federal writ of 

habeas corpus filed by a prisoner who is in state custody pursuant to a judgment of a state court 

must “specify all the grounds for relief available to the petitioner ... [and] state the facts supporting 

each ground.” Rule 2(c) of the Rules Governing § 2254 Cases, 28 U.S.C. § 2254. “‘[N]otice’ 

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

Case 3:19-cv-02948-JD Document 8 Filed 08/06/19 Page 1 of 4
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

of constitutional error.’” Rule 4 Advisory Committee Notes (quoting Aubut v. Maine, 431 F.2d 

688, 689 (1st Cir. 1970)).

LEGAL CLAIM

Petitioner was convicted in 1982 and sentenced to life in prison. Petition at 1. In this 

petition he argues that the judges involved in issuing an arrest warrant for him, a warrant to search 

his car and in presiding over his preliminary hearing did not have oaths of office. Assuming this 

states a federal claim this petition appears to be successive or untimely.

“A claim presented in a second or successive habeas corpus application under section 2254 

that was not presented in a prior application shall be dismissed . . .” 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(2). This 

is the case unless,

(A) the applicant shows that the claim relies on a new rule of 

constitutional law, made retroactive to cases on collateral review by 

the Supreme Court, that was previously unavailable; or

(B) (i) the factual predicate for the claim could not have been 

discovered previously through the exercise of due diligence; and

(ii) the facts underlying the claim, if proven and viewed in 

light of the evidence as a whole, would be sufficient to establish by 

clear and convincing evidence that, but for constitutional error, no 

reasonable factfinder would have found the applicant guilty of the 

underlying offense.

28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(2).

“Before a second or successive application permitted by this section is filed in the district 

court, the applicant shall move in the appropriate court of appeals for an order authorizing the 

district court to consider the application.” 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A).

The Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, which became law on April 

24, 1996, imposed for the first time a statute of limitations on petitions for a writ of habeas corpus 

filed by state prisoners. Petitions filed by prisoners challenging noncapital state convictions or 

sentences must be filed within one year of the latest of the date on which: (A) the judgment 

became final after the conclusion of direct review or the time passed for seeking direct review; (B) 

an impediment to filing an application created by unconstitutional state action was removed, if 

such action prevented petitioner from filing; (C) the constitutional right asserted was recognized 

by the Supreme Court, if the right was newly recognized by the Supreme Court and made 

Case 3:19-cv-02948-JD Document 8 Filed 08/06/19 Page 2 of 4
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

retroactive to cases on collateral review; or (D) the factual predicate of the claim could have been 

discovered through the exercise of due diligence. 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1). A prisoner with a state 

conviction finalized before April 24, 1996, had until April 24, 1997, to file a federal habeas 

petition on time. Patterson v. Stewart, 251 F.3d 1243, 1246 (9th Cir. 2001).

The petition is dismissed with leave to amend. Court records indicate that petitioner has 

filed several habeas petitions in this Court. If petitioner has already challenged this conviction, he 

must demonstrate why it is not successive or he must show that he has received authorization from 

the 9th Circuit. If petitioner has not challenged this conviction, he must demonstrate why the case 

is not untimely.

CONCLUSION

1. Within twenty-eight (28) days of service of this order, petitioner must file an 

amended petition. Failure to file an amended petition within the designated time may result in the 

dismissal of this action.

2. Petitioner must keep the Court informed of any change of address and must comply 

with the Court’s orders in a timely fashion. Failure to do so may result in the dismissal of this 

action for failure to prosecute pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil 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: August 6, 2019

JAMES DONATO

United States District Judge

Case 3:19-cv-02948-JD Document 8 Filed 08/06/19 Page 3 of 4
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DAVID B. PORTEE,

Plaintiff,

v.

KOENIG,

Defendant.

Case No. 19-cv-02948-JD 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am an employee in the Office of the Clerk, U.S. 

District Court, Northern District of California.

That on August 6, 2019, I SERVED a true and correct copy(ies) of the attached, by placing 

said copy(ies) in a postage paid envelope addressed to the person(s) hereinafter listed, by 

depositing said envelope in the U.S. Mail, or by placing said copy(ies) into an inter-office delivery 

receptacle located in the Clerk's office.

David B. Portee ID: C-50736

CTF - Correctional Training Facility -Soledad

P. O. Box 689

Soledad, CA 93960 

Dated: August 6, 2019

Susan Y. Soong

Clerk, United States District Court

By:________________________

LISA R. CLARK, Deputy Clerk to the 

Honorable JAMES DONATO

Case 3:19-cv-02948-JD Document 8 Filed 08/06/19 Page 4 of 4