Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_16-cv-01125/USCOURTS-caed-1_16-cv-01125-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Daniel Paramo
Respondent
James R. Porcho
Petitioner

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

Petitioner claims he has evidence that a key witness has recanted his trial testimony. However, 

the petitioner has failed to provide a copy of the declaration demonstrating the recantation. Thus, the 

Court will ORDER the petitioner to file a first amended petition within 30 days.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

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 

JAMES R. PORCHO,

 Petitioner,

v.

DANIEL PARAMO, Warden,

Respondent.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 1:16-cv-01125-JLT

ORDER REQUIRING PETITIONER TO SUBMIT 

AN AMENDED PETITION

THIRTY DAY DEADLINE

ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF THE COURT TO 

SEND PETITIONER A FORM FOR FILING 

HABEAS CORPUS PETITION PURSUANT TO 28 

U.S.C. § 2254

Case 1:16-cv-01125-LJO-JLT Document 9 Filed 08/11/16 Page 1 of 3
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

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

B. Insufficient Information and Failure to State a Cognizable Habeas Claim

A preliminary review of the petition indicates that Petitioner has not provided sufficient 

information regarding his claims for this case to proceed. 

Rule 2 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases provides 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.”

Petitioner must also clearly state the relief sought in the petition. Id. Additionally, the Advisory 

Committee Notes to Rule 4 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.’” Advisory Committee 

Notes to Rule 4; see Blackledge v. Allison, 431 U.S. 63, 75, n. 7, 97 S.Ct. 1621 (1977). 

Petitioner challenges his Kern County Superior Court conviction for four counts of lewd acts 

upon a minor under the age of fourteen. Petitioner contends that newly discovered evidence, in the 

form of a 2014 notarized declaration by Lloyd R., establishes that the victim was not sexually assaulted 

by Petitioner and that the victim was pressured into naming Petitioner by authorities because Lloyd R. 

did not know any better. 

However, Petitioner has not included a copy of the purported recantation. Absent such 

evidence, the petition is merely a brief collection of self-serving and conclusory allegations, none of 

which are supported by any relevant or admissible evidence. It is Petitioner’s responsibility to specify 

all grounds for relief and to provide sufficient factual allegations for the Court to determine what 

claims Petitioner is seeking to raise and whether those claims state the kind of federal constitutional 

violations upon which this Court’s habeas jurisdiction is predicated. Petitioner has failed to meet these 

minimal pleading requirements. Accordingly, Petitioner will be required to submit a first amended 

petition in which he clearly and succinctly sets forth all of his claims, together with supporting factual 

allegations, in order for this case to proceed.

Accordingly, the Court ORDERS:

1. The instant petition for writ of habeas corpus is hereby DISMISSED. Petitioner is 

GRANTED 30 days from the date of service of this Order to file a first amended petition

Case 1:16-cv-01125-LJO-JLT Document 9 Filed 08/11/16 Page 2 of 3
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

that complies with this order. 

2. The Clerk of the 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 an Order of 

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

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 10, 2016 /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:16-cv-01125-LJO-JLT Document 9 Filed 08/11/16 Page 3 of 3