Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01621/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01621-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
George Martin
Petitioner
Warden
Respondent
Jeanne Woodford
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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GEORGE MARTIN,

Petitioner,

v.

JEANNE WOODFORD, Warden,

Respondent.

 /

CV F 05-1621 AWI DLB HC

ORDER DIRECTING PETITIONER TO

AMEND PETITION

[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. 

Petitioner filed the instant petition on December 21, 2005. On the form petition,

Petitioner indicates that he was convicted in the Kings County Superior Court by proxy for the

San Diego Superior Court. Petitioner indicates that he is currently incarcerated at Corcoran State

Prison. A. Incomplete Petition

A preliminary review of the petition reveals that Petitioner has not completed the petition

and listed each ground for relief along with a brief statement of facts supporting each ground. 

Petitioner instead makes reference to several documents submitted in separate form in support of

his petition. 

Rule 2 of the "Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases" provide that the petition: 

" . . . shall specify all the grounds for relief which are available to the petitioner

and of which he has or by the exercise of reasonable diligence should have

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

grounds thus specified." 

Case 1:05-cv-01621-AWI-DLB Document 7 Filed 02/07/06 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

2

Rule 2(c), 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Additionally, the Advisory Committee Note to these rules explains

that: " '(N)otice' pleading is not sufficient, for the petition is expected to state facts that point to a

'real possibility of constitutional error.' " 28 U.S.C. § 2254, p. 1111; Quoted approvingly in

Blackledge v. Allison, 431 U.S. 63, 75 n.7, 97 S.Ct. 1621 (1977). Petitioner did not adequately

fill out the portion of the petition setting forth the grounds for relief and providing a brief

statement of the facts in support thereof. Instead, petitioner makes reference to the documents

he submitted in support of his petition. A petitioner may submit attachments or exhibits to the

petition, however, the form itself must be completed in its entirety. Petitioner must submit an

amended petition filling out the portion of the petition which sets forth a brief statement of the

ground for relief and supporting facts thereto. The court stresses the impropriety of filing a blank

petition along with attachments. This type of filing requires the court to expend a significant

amount of time attempting to determine what Petitioner’s claims are and whether he provides

sufficient facts to support them. Such information can be provided in a brief manner by

completing the form petition. Moreover, it is not the duty of federal courts to try to determine

what might constitute a claim for relief or which claims petitioner might intend to bring before

the court. Such duty is upon the individual who asserts a denial of his constitutional rights. The

court will not read through several pages in order to determine what claims Petitioner might wish

to bring. The form petition is provided to Petitioner to make the listing of claims easy and enable

the court to make a determination that the claim and supporting facts allege a proper denial of a

constitutional right. The court cannot proceed with the case until such claims are made clear. 

Thus, Petitioner must come forth with a statement of sufficient clarity and a brief statement of

supporting facts to enable a court to understand his argument and to render a decision on the

matter. 

B. Jurisdiction 

It is not entirely clear from reviewing the petition and exhibits attached whether this

Court has jurisdiction to review the instant petition. 

Although Petitioner has filed in the proper district court to challenge the execution of his

Case 1:05-cv-01621-AWI-DLB Document 7 Filed 02/07/06 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

3

sentence, under 28 U.S.C. section 2254, this Court does not have jurisdiction to hear claims

relating to the sentencing court where Petitioner was not sentenced in this district. See 28 U.S.C.

§ 2241(d); Local Rule 81-191(g). 

If Petitioner was convicted in the San Diego Superior Court, the United States District

Court for the Southern District of California has jurisdiction to hear the claim. However, if

Petitioner was convicted in the Kings County Superior Court and he is challenging his underlying

conviction, this Court does have authority to review the petition. Petitioner must amend the

petition to specify in which Court he was convicted and sentenced. 

C. Challenges to Conditions of Confinement

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

(9th Cir.1990). 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 habeas corpus petition is the correct method for a prisoner to challenge the “legality

or duration” of his confinement. Badea v. Cox, 931 F.2d 573, 574 (9th Cir. 1991), quoting,

Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 485 (1973); Advisory Committee Notes to Rule 1 of the

Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. In contrast, a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §

1983 is the proper method for a prisoner to challenge the conditions of that confinement. 

McCarthy v. Bronson, 500 U.S. 136, 141-42 (1991); Preiser, 411 U.S. at 499; Badea, 931 F.2d at

574; Advisory Committee Notes to Rule 1 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. 

It appears that Petitioner may be attempting to challenge the fact that prison officials have

prevented him from pursuing his appellate review in the state court system. Thus, it appears that

Petitioner may be challenging the conditions of his confinement, not the fact or duration of that

confinement. If this is the case, Petitioner must pursue those claims by way of a civil rights

complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

Case 1:05-cv-01621-AWI-DLB Document 7 Filed 02/07/06 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

1. Petitioner is GRANTED thirty (30) days from the date of service of this Order to

SUBMIT an AMENDED PETITION that clearly lists each ground for relief

petitioner intends to raise in this Court along with a brief statement of supporting

facts. The amended petition should be clearly and boldly titled “AMENDED

PETITION,” contain the appropriate case number, and be an original signed under

penalty of perjury. Petitioner should also note that every pleading to which an

amendment or supplement is permitted must be retyped and filed so that it is

complete in itself without reference to the prior or superseded pleading. Local

Rule 15-220. 

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

petitioners filing pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254.

Petitioner is forewarned that his failure to comply with this order may result in a

Recommendation that the petition be dismissed pursuant to Local Rule 11-110.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: February 6, 2006 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

3b142a UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-01621-AWI-DLB Document 7 Filed 02/07/06 Page 4 of 4