Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_16-cv-00621/USCOURTS-caed-1_16-cv-00621-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Danny Charles Barnes
Petitioner
Warden State Prison Sacramento
Respondent

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

The petition for writ of habeas corpus, filed by Danny Barnes, contains no claims and only 

sparse information. The petition indicates that Mr. Barnes was convicted in the Los Angeles Superior 

Court on some unspecified date. In every other space provided on the form, Petitioner answered either 

with his name and CDCR number, a reference to the Los Angeles Superior Court, or “yes.” Although 

Petitioner signs the petition, he notes the date as, “2016, 2017, 2018.” 

Such a defective petition does not meet basic pleading requirements for a federal habeas corpus 

proceeding. Petitioner has not informed the Court of the date and nature of his criminal conviction, 

what sentence was imposed, and has not provided any chronological information regarding a direct 

appeal. Additionally, in the spaces provided for listing claims, Petitioner responded with “yes,” written 

DANNY CHARLES BARNES,

 Petitioner,

v.

WARDEN STATE PRISON 

SACRAMENTO,

Respondent.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 1:16-cv-00621-JLT

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO

SUMMARILY DISMISS FIRST AMENDED 

PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

(Doc. 4)

ORDER DIRECTING THAT OBJECTIONS BE 

FILED WITHIN TWENTY-ONE DAYS

ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF THE COURT TO 

ASSIGN DISTRICT JUDGE TO CASE

Case 1:16-cv-00621-DAD-JLT Document 5 Filed 06/21/16 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

multiple times. The petition contains no claims and no information that would permit the Court to 

screen the petition for technical sufficiency, e.g., timeliness, exhaustion, etc. The Court is unable even 

to determine whether venue was proper in this Court. Thus, the petition fails to comply with the 

requirements of Rule 2(c) of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases, which requires that a 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.” 

Because of the significant pleading deficiencies in the original petition, on May 5, 2016, the 

Court ordered Petitioner to file a first amended petition within thirty days. (Doc. 3) On June 17, 

2016, Petitioner filed the first amended petition (“FAP”), which was similar to the original petition. 

(Doc. 4) In spaces on the form for providing information vital to the Court’s screening process, 

Petitioner has once again simply written the word “yes,” sometimes dozens of times. As a date, 

Petitioner has written “2016-2017-2018.” In other instances, rather than provide useful information, 

he has simply written his full name. Nothing in the FAP provides even the barest clue as to the

conviction Petitioner may be challenging or the grounds upon which he wishes to proceed.

As the Court explained in its previous order to amend, Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 

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 petition 

is not entitled to relief.” Rule 4 of the Rules Governing 2254 Cases. The Court must summarily 

dismiss a petition “[i]f it plainly appears from the petition and any attached exhibits that the petitioner 

is not entitled to relief in the district court....” Habeas Rule 4; O’Bremski v. Maass, 915 F.2d 418, 420 

(9th Cir. 1990); see also Hendricks v. Vasquez, 908 F.2d 490 (9th cir. 1990). Summary dismissal is 

appropriate only where the allegations in the petition are vague or conclusory, palpably incredible, or 

patently frivolous or false. Hendricks v. Vasquez, 908 F.2d 490, 491 (9th Cir. 1990) (quoting

Blackkledge v. Allison, 431 U.S. 63, 75-76 (1977)). Under § 2243, it is the duty of the Court to 

screen out frivolous applications and to eliminate the burden that would be placed on the respondent 

by ordering an unnecessary answer. Allen v. Perini, 424 F.2d 134, 141 (6th Cir. 1970); see Advisory 

Committee Notes to Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. The Advisory Committee 

Case 1:16-cv-00621-DAD-JLT Document 5 Filed 06/21/16 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

Notes to Rule 8 indicate that the Court may dismiss a petition for writ of 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. 

Habeas corpus petitions must meet heightened pleading requirements. McFarland v. Scott, 512 

U.S. 849, 856 (1994); Hendricks v. Vasquez, 908 F.2d 490, 491 (9th Cir. 1990). The petitioner shall 

set forth in summary form the facts supporting each of the grounds specified and shall state the relief 

requested. Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. As mentioned above, a petition may 

be dismissed if the factual allegations are so palpably incredible or so patently frivolous or false as to 

warrant summary dismissal. Blackledge, 431 U.S. at 78. A claim is legally frivolous when it lacks an 

arguable basis either in law or in fact. Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989); Franklin v. 

Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1227-1228 (9th Cir. 1984). 

The Court may, therefore, dismiss a claim as frivolous where it is based on an indisputably 

meritless legal theory or where the factual contentions are clearly baseless. Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 327. 

The critical inquiry is whether a constitutional claim, however, inartfully, pleaded, has an arguable 

legal and factual basis. See Jackson v. Arizona, 885 F.2d 639, 640 (9th Cir. 1989); Franklin, 745 F.2d 

at 1227. The Advisory Committee Notes to Rule 8 indicate that the Court may dismiss a petition for 

writ of 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. Advisory Committee Notes to Habeas Rule 

8, 1976 Adoption; see Herbst v. Cook, 260 F.3d 1039 (9th Cir.2001).

Here, after being afforded an opportunity to repair the deficiencies present in the original 

petition, Petitioner has chosen to repeat those deficiencies in the FAP. As it stands, the FAP contains 

no claims, no allegations, and no information to assist the Court. The Court must presume that 

Petitioner does not wish to comply with the federal rules regarding habeas corpus pleadings. Since the 

FAP contains no allegations or claims, only gibberish, Petitioner’s claims should be summarily denied 

as frivolous. To encourage Petitioner to submit a second amended petition would, in the Court’s view, 

be a waste of the Court’s time and would do a disservice both to an already overworked federal district

court as well as to those petitioners proceeding in good faith who are forced to wait for decisions in 

their cases while the Court addresses meritless and nonsensical petitions such as the instant FAP.

Case 1:16-cv-00621-DAD-JLT Document 5 Filed 06/21/16 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

ORDER

For the foregoing reasons, the Court HEREBY DIRECTS the Clerk of the Court to assign this 

case to a United States District Judge.

RECOMMENDATION

Accordingly, the Court RECOMMENDS that the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Doc. 1), 

be SUMMARILY DENIED because it is frivolous and nonsensical on its face.

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

assigned to the 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 21 days

after being served with a copy of this Findings and Recommendation, any party may file written 

objections with the Court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned 

“Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendation.” Replies to the Objections shall be 

served and filed within 10 days (plus three days if served by mail) after service of the Objections. The 

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

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

appeal the Order of the District Court. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 20, 2016 /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:16-cv-00621-DAD-JLT Document 5 Filed 06/21/16 Page 4 of 4