Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00156/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00156-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Rosanne Campbell
Respondent
Wade Edward Kelley
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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

WADE EDWARD KELLEY, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

)

v. )

)

ROSANNE CAMPBELL, )

)

Respondent. )

___________________________________)

1:06-cv-00156-LJO-TAG HC

ORDER REQUIRING PETITIONER TO FILE

AMENDED PETITION

ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT

TO SEND PETITIONER BLANK FORM

PETITION

Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with a petition for writ

of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 

Petitioner filed his petition on February 17, 2006. (Doc. 1). The filing consists of the sixpage form petition and approximately 169 pages of additional materials, a combination of

handwritten arguments and official documents. In the space of the form in which Petitioner is

required to list his claims for relief, he had indicated “SEE ATTACH,” apparently referring to the

attached materials. 

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; Hendricks v. Vasquez, 908 F.2d 490 (9th Cir.1990). Otherwise, the Court

will order Respondent to respond to the petition. Rule 5 of the Rules Governing § 2254 Cases. 

A federal court may only grant a petition for writ of habeas corpus if the petitioner can show

that "he is in custody in violation of the Constitution . . . ." 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (a). A petition for writ

of habeas corpus must specify the grounds for relief. Rule 2(c) of the Rules Governing Section 2254

Case 1:06-cv-00156-LJO -TAG Document 17 Filed 12/17/07 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 Petitioners are not precluded from submitting attachments or exhibits to the petition, however, the Court will not 1

determine a petitioner's claims for him based solely on his attachments. 

2

Cases. The petition must also allege the facts surrounding petitioner’s incarceration. 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2242. The petitioner must make specific factual allegations that would entitle him to habeas

corpus relief if they are true. O'Bremski v. Maass, 915 F.2d 418, 420 (9th Cir.1990); United States

v. Poopola, 881 F.2d 811, 812 (9th Cir. 1989). In addition, 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. If a petition contains no grounds

entitling the petitioner to habeas corpus relief, the court must dismiss the petition. Rule 4 of the

Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. 

The type of filing that simply references attachments requires the Court to expend

considerable time and resources attempting to determine which claims petitioner 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 lies solely with the petitioner. The proper use of the form 1

petition results in administrative convenience of benefit to both the petitioner and the Court. Here,

Petitioner apparently expects the Court to sift through all of the attachments to glean the basis for his

claims. The Court declines to engage in such a time-consuming effort. Thus, Petitioner will be

required to resubmit the form petition once it has been completely filled out as is stated on the form. 

A petitioner may submit attachments to the form; however, a simple reference to the attached

where specific information is required is not acceptable.

Because Petitioner has not clearly explained for his grounds for relief, a determination as to

whether the claims have been exhausted in the state courts is impossible. Indeed, Petitioner

apparently acknowledges that he has not exhausted some or all of his claims, because he indicates in

the petition that he was foreclosed from raising claims on appeal by the terms of his plea agreement. 

(Doc. 1, p. 3). Petitioner is advised that he must have exhausted all claims in the state courts, by

presenting such claims in the California Supreme Court, before he may raise them in this Court. 

Case 1:06-cv-00156-LJO -TAG Document 17 Filed 12/17/07 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

Petitioner should note that a one year period of limitations exists for cases filed pursuant to §2254. In most cases, 2

the one year limitation period starts to run on the date the California Supreme Court denied petitioner’s direct review. The

limitations period is tolled while a properly filed request for post-conviction or other collateral review is pending in state

court. 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(2). However, the running of the limitation period is not tolled for the time an application for postconviction or collateral review is pending in federal court. Sperling v. White, 30 F. Supp.2d 1246, 1250 (C.D. Cal. 1998).

3

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). 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 (9 Cir. 1996). A federal court will find that the highest state court was given a full and th

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

(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 (9 Cir.1999); th

Keating v. Hood, 133 F.3d 1240, 1241 (9 Cir.1998). th

In addition to listing his grounds for relief, petitioner must tell the Court which claims were

raised and in which court. This information must include the dates of filing and disposition so as to

determine whether petitioner has exhausted his state remedies and is in compliance with the

limitations period prescribed by 28 U.S.C. §2244(d)(1). All of this information can be supplied 2

using the form petition. Without this information, the Court cannot proceed to the merits of the

petition. 

ORDER

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:

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

an amended petition. Petitioner is advised that the amended petition should be clearly

entitled “Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus.” Petitioner is advised that

the petition must set forth his claim(s) clearly, including all the facts and arguments in

Case 1:06-cv-00156-LJO -TAG Document 17 Filed 12/17/07 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

support of said claim(s). With respect to any claims raised in an 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. The Court will not consider the original petition. Petitioner is

reminded that each claim must state a cognizable federal claim;

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 14, 2007 /s/ Theresa A. Goldner 

j6eb3d UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

Case 1:06-cv-00156-LJO -TAG Document 17 Filed 12/17/07 Page 4 of 4