Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00236/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00236-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Jason Saunders
Petitioner
James Yates
Respondent

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

U.S . District Court

 E. D . California cd 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JASON SAUNDERS, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

v. )

)

)

JAMES YATES, )

)

Respondent. )

 )

CV F 05 0236 REC LJO HC

ORDER DISMISSING PETITION WITH

LEAVE TO AMEND

[Doc. #1]

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

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. This action has been referred to this Court pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Local Rule 72-302.

On February 17, 2005, Petitioner filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus in this Court.

DISCUSSION

A. Procedural Grounds for Summary Dismissal

Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases provides in pertinent part:

If it plainly appears from the face of the petition and any exhibits annexed to 

it that the petitioner is not entitled to relief in the district court, the judge shall 

make an order for its summary dismissal and cause the petitioner to be notified. 

The Advisory Committee Notes to Rule 8 indicate that the court may dismiss a petition for writ of

Case 1:05-cv-00236-REC-LJO Document 10 Filed 04/21/05 Page 1 of 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

U.S . District Court

 E. D . California cd 2

habeas corpus, either on its own motion under Rule 4, pursuant to the respondent’s motion to

dismiss, or after an answer to the petition has been filed. 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).

B. Illegible Petition

Petitioner must state his claim with sufficient specificity. See Hendricks v. Vasquez 908 F.2d

at 491-92; Wacht v. Cardwell, 604 F.2d 1245, 1246-47 (9th Cir.1979). Rule 2(c) of the Rules

Governing Section 2254 Cases states, in relevant part:

[The petition] shall specify all of the grounds for relief which are available to 

the petitioner of which he has or by the exercise of due diligence should have 

knowledge and shall set forth in summary form the facts supporting each of 

the grounds thus specified. It shall also state the relief requested. The petition 

shall be typewritten or legibly handwritten and shall be signed under penalty 

of perjury by the petitioner.

(Emphasis added.) 

The majority of the instant petition is illegible. Commencing with page nine, the typewriting

is so faint that it cannot be read. Therefore, the petition must be dismissed. Petitioner will be given

an opportunity to file an amended petition curing this deficiency. Petitioner is advised that failure to

file a legible petition within the time allotted will result in a recommendation that the petition be

dismissed and the action be terminated. Petitioner is advised that the amended petition should be

titled “First Amended Petition” and reference the instant case number.

ORDER

Accordingly, the petition for writ of habeas corpus is hereby DISMISSED. Petitioner is

GRANTED thirty (30) days from the date of service of this order to file an amended petition in

compliance with this order. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 21, 2005 /s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill 

b9ed48 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-00236-REC-LJO Document 10 Filed 04/21/05 Page 2 of 2