Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01019/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01019-2/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Tom Marshall
Respondent
Raymond Ray Robison
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

—o0o—

RAYMOND RAY ROBISON, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

v. )

)

)

TOM MARSHALL, )

)

Respondent. )

 )

1:05-cv-01019-OWW-TAG HC

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO

SUPPLEMENT PETITION (Doc. 10)

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

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 

On July 13, 2005, Petitioner filed the instant habeas petition in the Sacramento Division

of the Eastern District of California. (Doc. 1). The petition claims that the state court wrongfully

refused to divert Petitioner into a Proposition 36 drug rehabilitation program, that Petitioner was

entitled to probation rather than a state prison sentence, and that he was denied the effective

assistance of counsel. (Id. at pp. 4-5). On August 8, 2005, the case was transferred to the Fresno

Division. (Doc. 5). On April 3, 2006, Petitioner filed the instant “supplemental motion/to

Case 1:05-cv-01019-TAG Document 11 Filed 02/23/07 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

2

augment petition for writ of habeas corpus.” (Doc. 10). The motion makes additional legal

arguments regarding the petition and requests this Court to “order State of California to follow

it’s own law” and to order that Petitioner be “remanded for re-sentencing.” (Id. at p. 2). 

In essence, Petitioner’s motion requests that the Court summarily grant the petition. 

Such a request is completely inappropriate at this time. The Court must first conduct its

preliminary screening of the petition pursuant to Rule 4 of the Rules Governing § 2254 Cases. 

In that screening, 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. In the

course of its response, Respondent will lodge with this Court the entire state court record in order

to facilitate a thorough review by this Court of Petitioner’s claims. When that occurs, the Court

be in a position to rule on the petition.

Accordingly, Petitioner’s Motion to Supplement Petition (Doc. 10), is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 23, 2007 /s/ Theresa A. Goldner 

j6eb3d UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

Case 1:05-cv-01019-TAG Document 11 Filed 02/23/07 Page 2 of 2