Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00546/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00546-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
California Attorney General
Respondent
Kenneth Dowe Smith
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

1A petitioner may amend a petition for writ of habeas corpus once “as a matter of course,”

and without leave of Court, before a response has been filed under Federal Rule of Civil

Procedure 15(a), as applied to habeas corpus actions pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2242 and Rule 11 of

the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. Calderon v. United States District Court (Thomas),

144 F.3d 618, 620 (9th Cir. 1998); Bonn v. Calderon, 59 F.3d 815, 845 (9th Cir. 1995). Leave

of Court is required for all other amendments. Rule Civ. P. 15(a). 

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

KENNETH DOWE SMITH, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

v. )

)

CALIFORNIA ATTORNEY GENERAL, )

)

Respondent. )

 )

1:05-cv-00546-REC-TAG HC

ORDER REQUIRING PETITIONER TO FILE

A SECOND AMENDED PETITION

ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT TO

SEND PETITIONER A BLANK FORM

PETITION FOR HABEAS CORPUS

Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas corpus

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. On April 25, 2005, Petitioner filed a petition for writ of habeas

corpus in this Court. (Doc. 1). The original petition raises the following two claims for relief: 

(1) Petitioner’s “three strikes” sentence is cruel and unusual under the Eighth Amendment; and

(2) the trial court’ s refusal to dismiss a prior “strike” conviction violated Petitioner’s right to due

process. (Doc. 1, p. 5). 

On July 8, 2005, Petitioner filed an amended petition.1 (Doc. 6). The amended petition

seeks not only to incorporate by reference the grounds raised in the original petition without

actually alleging them in the amended petition, but also adds two new grounds for relief: (1)

Case 1:05-cv-00546-OWW -TAG Document 7 Filed 12/09/05 Page 1 of 7
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

ineffective assistance of trial counsel for failure to file certain motions; and (2) ineffective

assistance of trial counsel in that trial counsel had a conflict of interest that prejudiced Petitioner. 

(Doc. 5, p. 3). 

DISCUSSION

Rule 4 of the Rules Governing § 2254 Cases requires the Court to make a preliminary

review of each petition for writ of habeas corpus. The Court must dismiss a petition "[i]f it

plainly appears from the face of the petition . . . that the petitioner is not entitled to relief." Rule

4 of the Rules Governing 2254 Cases; see also Hendricks v. Vasquez, 908 F.2d 490, 491 (9th

Cir. 1990). A petition for habeas corpus should not be 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).

1. Exhaustion of State 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). 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

Case 1:05-cv-00546-OWW -TAG Document 7 Filed 12/09/05 Page 2 of 7
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

Cir.1999); Keating v. Hood, 133 F.3d 1240, 1241 (9th Cir.1998). In Duncan, the United States

Supreme Court reiterated the rule as follows: 

In Picard v. Connor, 404 U.S. 270, 275 . . . (1971), we said that exhaustion 

of state remedies requires that petitioners "fairly presen[t]" federal claims to the 

state courts in order to give the State the "'opportunity to pass upon and correct 

alleged violations of the prisoners' federal rights" (some internal quotation marks

omitted). If state courts are to be given the opportunity to correct alleged violations 

of prisoners' federal rights, they must surely be alerted to the fact that the prisoners 

are asserting claims under the United States Constitution. If a habeas petitioner 

wishes to claim that an evidentiary ruling at a state court trial denied him the due 

process of law guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment, he must say so, not only 

in federal court, but in state court. 

Duncan, 513 U.S. at 365-366. The Ninth Circuit examined the rule further, stating:

Our rule is that a state prisoner has not "fairly presented" (and thus 

exhausted) his federal claims in state court unless he specifically indicated to 

that court that those claims were based on federal law. See Shumway v. Payne, 

223 F.3d 982, 987-88 (9th Cir. 2000). Since the Supreme Court's decision in 

Duncan, this court has held that the petitioner must make the federal basis of the 

claim explicit either by citing federal law or the decisions of federal courts, even

if the federal basis is “self-evident," Gatlin v. Madding, 189 F.3d 882, 889 

(9th Cir. 1999) (citing Anderson v. Harless, 459 U.S. 4, 7 . . . (1982), or the 

underlying claim would be decided under state law on the same considerations 

that would control resolution of the claim on federal grounds. Hiivala v. Wood, 

195 F3d 1098, 1106-07 (9th Cir. 1999); Johnson v. Zenon, 88 F.3d 828, 830-31 

(9th Cir. 1996); . . . .

In Johnson, we explained that the petitioner must alert the state court to 

the fact that the relevant claim is a federal one without regard to how similar the 

state and federal standards for reviewing the claim may be or how obvious the 

violation of federal law is. 

Lyons v. Crawford, 232 F.3d 666, 668-669 (9th Cir. 2000) (italics added). 

A federal habeas corpus proceeding cannot substitute for state court appellate review. If

Petitioner has not presented all of his claims to the California Supreme Court, the Court must

dismiss the petition. See Calderon v. United States Dist. Court, 107 F.3d 756, 760 (9th Cir.

1997) (en banc); Greenawalt v. Stewart, 105 F.3d 1268, 1273 (9th Cir. 1997). Federal courts

require exhaustion out of comity to the state court, and the requirement is designed to give state

courts the initial opportunity to correct alleged constitutional deprivations. Rose v. Lundy, 455

U.S. 509, 518 (1982); Buffalo v. Sun, 854 F.2d 1158, 1163 (9th Cir. 1988). The only exception to

exhaustion is if the state provides no corrective process or if the state’s process is so ineffective

as to fail to protect the petitioner’s rights under the circumstances. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(1)(B). 

///

Case 1:05-cv-00546-OWW -TAG Document 7 Filed 12/09/05 Page 3 of 7
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

2Petitioners are not precluded from submitting attachments or exhibits to the petition,

however, the Court will not determine a petitioner's claims for him based solely on his

attachments. 

4

Here, the two claims for relief listed in the amended petition do not appear to have been

exhausted in state court. Petitioner provides no information whatsoever regarding his efforts, if

any, to present these two ineffective assistance of counsel claims to the California Supreme

Court. From his amended petition, and the omission of those issues from the original petition, it

seems probable that Petitioner has not presented either of these two issues to the California

Supreme Court. 

However, although it appears that Petitioner has not exhausted the two claims for relief in

his amended petition, Petitioner may have information to the contrary which he has not included

in the amended petition. Thus, the Court will permit Petitioner an opportunity to file a second

amended petition in which he can either provide information establishing that he has presented

these two new grounds of ineffective assistance of counsel to the California Supreme Court or

which deletes the unexhausted claims and presents only exhausted claims. 

2. Claims in the Original Petition.

In his amended petition, Petitioner seeks to incorporate by reference the claims listed in

the original petition without actually listing those claims in the amended petition. However, 

because an amended pleading supersedes the original pleading, any amended pleading must be

complete in itself without reference to any prior pleading. Local Rule 15-220; Loux v. Rhay,

375 F.2d 55, 57 (9th Cir. 1967). See Rule 2 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases; Local

Rule 81-190 This rule ensures that all information needed is before the court. Each ground for

relief must be clearly stated and allege what federal constitutional violation has occurred, along

with providing facts that support the grounds for relief. The type of filing that simply references

attachments or prior filings without itself enumerating all asserted claims requires the Court to

expend considerable time and resources attempting to determine which claims Petitioner actually

seeks to raise before this Court. It is unreasonable to expect the Court to take on such a task

when the responsibility to inform the Court about his claims lies solely with the petitioner.2

Case 1:05-cv-00546-OWW -TAG Document 7 Filed 12/09/05 Page 4 of 7
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

5

Moreover, the amended petition is not on a form provided by the Court. A petition

presented in pro se must be upon the form approved by the court. See Rule 2 of the Rules

Governing Section 2254 Cases; Local Rule 81-190. This rule ensures that all information needed

is before the court. Each ground for relief must be clearly stated and allege what federal

constitutional violation has occurred, along with providing facts that support the grounds for

relief. The proper use of the form petition results in administrative convenience of benefit to

both Petitioner and the Court. Thus, Petitioner will be required to file a second amended petition

on a form petition provided by the Court. 

3. Proper Respondent.

A petitioner seeking habeas corpus relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 must name the state

officer having custody of him as the respondent to the petition. Rule 2 (a) of the Rules

Governing § 2254 Cases; Ortiz-Sandoval v. Gomez, 81 F.3d 891, 894 (9th Cir. 1996); Stanley v.

California Supreme Court, 21 F.3d 359, 360 (9th Cir. 1994). Normally, the person having

custody of an incarcerated petitioner is the warden of the prison in which the petitioner is

incarcerated because the warden has "day-to-day control over" the petitioner. Brittingham v.

United States, 982 F.2d 378, 379 (9th Cir. 1992); see also, Stanley v. California Supreme Court,

21 F.3d 359, 360 (9th Cir. 1994). However, the chief officer in charge of state penal institutions

is also appropriate. Ortiz, 81 F.3d at 894; Stanley, 21 F.3d at 360. Where a petitioner is on

probation or parole, the proper respondent is his probation or parole officer and the official in

charge of the parole or probation agency or state correctional agency. Id. 

Here, Petitioner has named as Respondent the “California Attorney General.” However,

the California Attorney General is not the warden of the institution where petitioner is presently

confined and, thus, does not have day-to-day control over petitioner. Petitioner is incarcerated at

the Idaho Correctional Center in Boise, Idaho. Petitioner should name as respondent the warden

of that facility.

Petitioner’s failure to name a proper respondent requires dismissal of his habeas petition

for lack of jurisdiction. Stanley, 21 F.3d at 360; Olson v. California Adult Auth., 423 F.2d 1326,

1326 (9th Cir. 1970); see also, Billiteri v. United States Bd. Of Parole, 541 F.2d 938, 948 (2nd

Case 1:05-cv-00546-OWW -TAG Document 7 Filed 12/09/05 Page 5 of 7
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

In the event Petitioner has not exhausted his state remedies, he may wish to withdraw the

instant petition because of the one-year period of limitations in which a petitioner must file a

federal petition for writ of habeas corpus. 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1). The limitations period is

tolled during the time a petition for writ of habeas corpus is pending in state court; however, it is

not tolled for the time a federal petition is pending in federal court. Duncan v. Walker, 563 U.S.

167 (2001). Alternatively, as mentioned, Petitioner may choose to file an amended petition that

deletes the unexhausted claim(s).

6

Cir. 1976). However, because the Court is granting petitioner leave to file a second amended

petition, Petitioner will have the opportunity to cure this defect by naming a proper respondent,

e.g., the warden of his facility, in the second amended petition. See West v. Louisiana, 478 F.2d

1026, 1029 (5th Cir.1973), vacated in part on other grounds, 510 F.2d 363 (5th Cir.1975) (en

banc) (allowing petitioner to amend petition to name proper respondent); Ashley v. State of

Washington, 394 F.2d 125 (9th Cir. 1968) (same). 

ORDER

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:

1. That Petitioner is granted thirty (30) days from the date of service of this order to

file a second amended petition. Petitioner is advised that the second amended

petition should be clearly entitled “Second Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas

Corpus.” Petitioner is also advised that the petition must set forth his all of his

claim(s), including all the facts and arguments in support of said claim(s). With

respect to any claims raised in a second amended petition, Petitioner must have

presented those claims, either in his original state court appeal or through a

subsequent state habeas corpus petition, to the California Supreme Court prior to

raising them in this Court. It is Petitioner’s responsibility to advise the Court in

his amended petition of the dates when the state courts ruled on the issues

Petitioner raised.

3

 The Court will not consider the original petition or the first

amended petition. Petitioner is reminded that each claim must state a cognizable 

federal claim and that the second amended petition must name a proper

respondent;

///

Case 1:05-cv-00546-OWW -TAG Document 7 Filed 12/09/05 Page 6 of 7
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

7

2. The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to send Petitioner a blank form petition for

state prisoners filing pursuant to § 2254.

Petitioner is forewarned that failure to follow this order will result in a recommendation

for dismissal of the petition pursuant to Local Rule 11-110.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 9, 2005 /s/ Theresa A. Goldner 

j6eb3d UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-00546-OWW -TAG Document 7 Filed 12/09/05 Page 7 of 7