Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_19-cv-02176/USCOURTS-cand-3_19-cv-02176-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
People of California
Respondent
Grant Leslie Washam
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GRANT LESLIE WASHAM,

Petitioner,

v.

PEOPLE OF CALIFORNIA,

Respondent.

Case No. 19-cv-02176-JD 

ORDER GRANTING LEAVE TO 

PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS 

AND DISMISSING PETITION 

WITH LEAVE TO AMEND

Re: Dkt. No. 5

Petitioner, a prisoner, filed a pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 

U.S.C. § 2254. He also applied for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. Petitioner was convicted 

in Lake County, which is in this district, so venue is proper here. See 28 U.S.C. § 2241(d).

BACKGROUND

Petitioner states he was convicted and sentenced on February 19, 2019, for false 

imprisonment with violence. Petition at 2. He states that he did not appeal the conviction or file a 

state habeas petition. Id. at 5-6. 

DISCUSSION

STANDARD OF REVIEW

The Court may consider a petition for writ of habeas corpus “in behalf of a person in 

custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court only on the ground that he is in custody in 

violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a); Rose v. 

Hodges, 423 U.S. 19, 21 (1975). Habeas corpus petitions must meet heightened pleading 

requirements. McFarland v. Scott, 512 U.S. 849, 856 (1994). An application for a federal writ of 

habeas corpus filed by a prisoner who is in state custody pursuant to a judgment of a state court 

Case 3:19-cv-02176-JD Document 11 Filed 07/30/19 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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

must “specify all the grounds for relief available to the petitioner ... [and] state the facts supporting 

each ground.” Rule 2(c) of the Rules Governing § 2254 Cases, 28 U.S.C. § 2254. “‘[N]otice’ 

pleading is not sufficient, for the petition is expected to state facts that point to a ‘real possibility 

of constitutional error.’” Rule 4 Advisory Committee Notes (quoting Aubut v. Maine, 431 F.2d 

688, 689 (1st Cir. 1970)).

LEGAL CLAIMS

Petitioner argues that pursuant to state law he is entitled to more good conduct credits and 

should be released from custody sooner than his anticipated release date. Assuming that petitioner 

has presented a federal claim, it does not appear that he has exhausted this claim in state court.

Before he may challenge either the fact or length of his confinement in a habeas petition in 

this Court, petitioner must present to the California Supreme Court any claims he wishes to raise 

in this Court. See Rose v. Lundy, 455 U.S. 509, 522 (1982) (holding every claim raised in federal 

habeas petition must be exhausted). The general rule is that a federal district court must dismiss a 

federal habeas petition containing any claim as to which state remedies have not been exhausted. 

Id. 

It appears that petitioner has presented an entirely unexhausted petition. The petition is 

dismissed with leave to amend to demonstrate that he exhausted the claim. Petitioner should also 

provide more information regarding his claim and describe how it presents a federal claim. He 

must present a claim regarding a violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United 

States. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a). 

CONCLUSION

1. Leave to proceed in forma pauperis (Docket No. 5) is GRANTED.

2. Within twenty-eight (28) days of service of this order, petitioner must file an 

amended petition and he may file a motion for a stay. Failure to file an amended petition within 

the designated time may result in the dismissal of this action.

3. Petitioner must keep the Court informed of any change of address and must comply 

with the Court’s orders in a timely fashion. Failure to do so may result in the dismissal of this 

action for failure to prosecute pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). See Martinez v. 

Case 3:19-cv-02176-JD Document 11 Filed 07/30/19 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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

Johnson, 104 F.3d 769, 772 (5th Cir. 1997) (Rule 41(b) applicable in habeas cases).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 30, 2019

JAMES DONATO

United States District Judge

Case 3:19-cv-02176-JD Document 11 Filed 07/30/19 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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GRANT LESLIE WASHAM,

Plaintiff,

v.

PEOPLE OF CALIFORNIA,

Defendant.

Case No. 19-cv-02176-JD 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am an employee in the Office of the Clerk, U.S. 

District Court, Northern District of California.

That on July 30, 2019, I SERVED a true and correct copy(ies) of the attached, by placing 

said copy(ies) in a postage paid envelope addressed to the person(s) hereinafter listed, by 

depositing said envelope in the U.S. Mail, or by placing said copy(ies) into an inter-office delivery 

receptacle located in the Clerk's office.

Grant Leslie Washam ID: #37933

Lake County Sheriff's Office

4913 Helbush Dr.

Lakeport, CA 95453 

Dated: July 30, 2019

Susan Y. Soong

Clerk, United States District Court

By:________________________

LISA R. CLARK, Deputy Clerk to the 

Honorable JAMES DONATO

Case 3:19-cv-02176-JD Document 11 Filed 07/30/19 Page 4 of 4