Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_16-cv-00072/USCOURTS-caed-1_16-cv-00072-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Jennifer Ann Payne
Petitioner
George Runner
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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JENNIFER ANN PAYNE,

Petitioner,

v.

GEORGE RUNNER,

Respondent.

Case No. 1:16-cv-00072 MJS (HC)

ORDER DISMISSING PETITION FOR WRIT 

OF HABEAS CORPUS FOR FAILING TO 

STATE COGNIZABLE CLAIM

AMENDED PETITION DUE WITHIN THIRTY 

(30) DAYS

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

corpus under the authority of 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 

Petitioner filed the instant petition for writ of habeas corpus on January 15, 2016. 

(Pet., ECF No. 1.) Petitioner sets forth that she is currently confined in the Fresno 

County Jail. However the Court is unable to discern her legal challenges, if any, to her 

pending criminal charges or criminal convictions. (Id.)

Case 1:16-cv-00072-DAD-MJS Document 4 Filed 01/25/16 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

I. DISCUSSION

A. Procedural Grounds for Summary Dismissal

Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases provides in pertinent part:

If it plainly appears from the petition and any attached exhibits that 

the petitioner is not entitled to relief in the district court, the judge must 

dismiss the petition and direct the clerk to notify the petitioner.

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. A 

petition for habeas corpus should not be dismissed without leave to amend unless it 

appears that no tenable claim for relief can be pleaded were such leave granted. Jarvis 

v. Nelson, 440 F.2d 13, 14 (9th Cir. 1971).

B. Petitioner's Claims

Petitioner presents two claims in her petition. Both claims are lengthy, and 

essentially unintelligible. For example, claim two begins: 

East Avenue or street near Belgravia CAROL 10/2 water resistant MSHA 

near 996.9 switch X & hand dryer @ Tahachi palace. Bowling balls HTC 

101 Fresno Unified “ME s/w playground of Kerman Floyd Elementary 

starring at invisible bubbles.” Doctor no relation to Doctor J-178R08/02 

“OR NOT” 24/7 urgent care clinic statement or line comment “tell them no 

longer chicken noodle turkey soup... speedrail” as he wiped his eye...

(Pet. at 6, ECF No. 1.) 

The Court finds that Petitioner's statements are incoherent and therefore prevent 

Respondent from properly responding to Petitioner's claims. The notice pleading 

standard applicable in ordinary civil proceedings does not apply in habeas corpus cases. 

Habeas Rules 2(c), 4, and 5(b) require a more detailed statement of all grounds for relief 

and the facts supporting each ground; the petition is expected to state facts that point to 

a real possibility of constitutional error and show the relationship of the facts to the claim. 

Habeas Rule 4, Advisory Committee Notes, 1976 Adoption; Mayle v. Felix, 545 U.S. 

644, 655 (2005); O'Bremski v. Maass, 915 F.2d 418, 420 (9th Cir. 1990) (quoting 

Blackledge v. Allison, 431 U.S. 63, 75 n.7 (1977)). This is because the purpose of the 

Case 1:16-cv-00072-DAD-MJS Document 4 Filed 01/25/16 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

rules is to assist the district court in determining whether the respondent should be 

ordered to show cause why the writ should not be granted and to permit the filing of an 

answer that satisfies the requirement that it address the allegations in the petition. 

Mayle, 545 U.S. at 655. Allegations in a petition that are vague, conclusional, or palpably 

incredible, and that are unsupported by a statement of specific facts, are insufficient to 

warrant relief and are subject to summary dismissal. Jones v. Gomez, 66 F.3d 199, 204-

05 (9th Cir. 1995); James v. Borg, 24 F.3d 20, 26 (9th Cir. 1994).

Petitioner does not specify the conviction she is challenging or what federal law 

she feels was violated by Respondent. Without more, Respondent cannot reasonably be 

expected to respond to Petitioner's claims. A petition for habeas corpus should not be 

dismissed without leave to amend unless it appears that no tenable claim for relief can 

be pleaded were such leave granted. Jarvis v. Nelson, 440 F.2d 13, 14 (9th Cir. 1971).

Accordingly, the Court shall provide Petitioner another opportunity to state her claims in 

an amended petition. The Court shall provide Petitioner a blank petition for writ of 

habeas corpus, and Petitioner is advised that she must reference the instant case 

number and designate her petition as an "Amended Petition." Petitioner must present 

her claims in sufficient detail as to provide Respondent the ability to comprehend and 

respond with reasonable effort. 

II. ORDER

 Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

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

SUBMIT an AMENDED PETITION. 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; 

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

Petitioner's filing pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254; and,

3. Petitioner is forewarned that her failure to comply with this order may result in a 

Case 1:16-cv-00072-DAD-MJS Document 4 Filed 01/25/16 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

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

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 23, 2016 /s/Michael J. Seng 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:16-cv-00072-DAD-MJS Document 4 Filed 01/25/16 Page 4 of 4