Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_19-cv-01394/USCOURTS-caed-1_19-cv-01394-2/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Ron Davis
Respondent
Anthony Letrice Townsel
Petitioner

Document Text:

1

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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Petitioner filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus on October 4, 2019. (Doc. 1.) On January 

14, 2020, Respondent filed a motion to dismiss the petition for lack of verification of a memorandum 

included with the petition. (Doc. 19.) Petitioner filed an opposition to the motion on February 4, 2020, 

which includes a declaration swearing to the contents of the memorandum at issue. (Doc. 21.) For the 

reasons that follow, the Court will recommend that Respondent’s motion be DENIED as moot. 

DISCUSSION

I. Procedural Grounds for Motion to Dismiss

Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases allows a district court to dismiss a petition 

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 . . . .” Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases.

The Ninth Circuit has allowed respondents to file a motion to dismiss in lieu of an answer if 

the motion attacks the pleadings for failing to exhaust state remedies or being in violation of the state’s 

ANTHONY LETRICE TOWNSEL,

 Petitioner,

v.

RON DAVIS,

Respondent.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 1:19-cv-01394-NONE-JLT (HC)

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION TO 

DENY RESPONDENT’S MOTION TO DISMISS 

[Doc. 19]

[TEN-DAY OBJECTION DEADLINE]

Case 1:19-cv-01394-JLT-CDB Document 22 Filed 02/24/20 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

procedural rules. See, e.g., O’Bremski v. Maass, 915 F.2d 418, 420 (9th Cir. 1990) (using Rule 4 to 

evaluate motion to dismiss petition for failure to exhaust state remedies); White v. Lewis, 874 F.2d 

599, 602-03 (9th Cir. 1989) (using Rule 4 as procedural grounds to review motion to dismiss for state 

procedural default); Hillery v. Pulley, 533 F.Supp. 1189, 1194 & n.12 (E.D. Cal. 1982) (same). Thus, 

a respondent can file a motion to dismiss after the court orders a response, and the court should use 

Rule 4 standards to review the motion. See Hillery, 533 F. Supp. at 1194 & n. 12.

In this case, Respondent's motion to dismiss is based on a lack of verification. Because 

Respondent's motion to dismiss is similar in procedural standing to a motion to dismiss for failure to 

exhaust state remedies or for state procedural default, and Respondent has not yet filed a formal 

answer, the Court will review Respondent’s motion to dismiss pursuant to its authority under Rule 4.

II. Verification

Petitioner used the form petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 for filing his petition and 

included claims 1 through 4 in the spaces provided, incorporating by reference the corresponding 

claim in the memorandum of points and authorities. (Doc. 1 at 8-14.) The memorandum includes a 

total of 18 claims. (Doc. 1-3.) Respondent argues that it is an issue that Petitioner did not swear to the 

truth of the memorandum that was filed with the petition. (See Doc. 19.) Respondent contends that the 

petition specifically references claims 1 through 4 and is itself sworn, therefore, “the obvious reading 

is that Petitioner has in fact read the contents of the Memorandum with respect to Claims 1 through 4, 

and that he specifically swears under penalty of perjury that he knows those contents to be the truth.” 

(Doc. 19 at 2.) However, Respondent alleges that there is no statement in the petition as to claims 5 

through 18, and because Petitioner did not swear to the truth of the contents of the memorandum, the 

unsworn claims 5 through 18 cannot proceed. (Doc. 19 at 2.) Respondent further notes that “[i]f 

Petitioner seeks to proceed on all claims in the Memorandum, he may simply submit to this Court a 

declaration that he has read the contents of the Memorandum, and that he swears under penalty of 

perjury that those contents are true, with the date of his swearing.” (Doc. 19 at 3.) 

In his opposition to the motion, Petitioner explains that he used the designated form petition 

that includes space for four claims and followed the form’s directive to “[a]ttach additional pages if 

you have more than four grounds.” (Doc. 21 at 1; Doc. 1 at 8.) Petitioner states that he included with 

Case 1:19-cv-01394-JLT-CDB Document 22 Filed 02/24/20 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

the form the memorandum of points and authorities that set forth all 18 claims. (Doc. 21 at 1.) 

Petitioner notes that he signed the form under penalty of perjury, attesting to the truth of the contents 

of the form. (Doc. 21 at 2.) In response to Respondent’s contention that a declaration needs to be filed, 

Petitioner contends that no such declaration is required; however, Petitioner did include a signed and 

dated declaration with his opposition, which states that Petitioner “read the contents of the 

Memorandum of Points and Authorities before filing the petition and swear[s] the contents are true.”

(Doc. 21 at 2-3.) 

Local Rule 131 requires a document submitted to the Court for filing to include an original 

signature. In addition, Rule 2(c) of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases requires a petition for writ 

of habeas corpus to “be signed under penalty of perjury by the petitioner.”

Petitioner filed a signed petition on October 4, 2019 (Doc. 1 at 18), and a signed declaration on 

February 4, 2020 (Doc. 21 at 3). Because the originally filed petition was signed, and Petitioner 

corrected any defect that may have existed with verifying the memorandum, it is recommended that 

Respondent's motion to dismiss the Petition based on Petitioner's failure to verify be DENIED as 

moot. See Hendricks v. Vasquez, 908 F.2d 490, 491 (9th Cir. 1990) (an unsigned and

unverified petition is a defect "that the district court may, if it sees fit, disregard.").

RECOMMENDATION

Accordingly, the Court RECOMMENDS that Respondent’s motion to dismiss be DENIED as 

moot, and Respondent be DIRECTED to file an answer to the petition.

This Findings and Recommendation is submitted to the United States District Court Judge 

assigned to this case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(B) and Rule 304 of the 

Local Rules of Practice for the United States District Court, Eastern District of California. Within ten

days after being served with a copy, any party may file written objections with the Court. Such a 

document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendation.”

The Court will then review the Magistrate Judge’s ruling pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(C). 

///

///

Case 1:19-cv-01394-JLT-CDB Document 22 Filed 02/24/20 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

The parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the 

right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 21, 2020 /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:19-cv-01394-JLT-CDB Document 22 Filed 02/24/20 Page 4 of 4