Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-01746/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-01746-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Thomas L. Carey
Respondent
William T. Huff
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

WILLIAM T. HUFF,

Petitioner,

v.

THOMAS L. CAREY,

Respondent.

 /

1:07-cv-01746 AWI SMS (HC)

ORDER DISMISSING PETITION, WITH

LEAVE TO AMEND; ORDER DIRECTING

CLERK OF COURT TO SEND PETITIONER

BLANK § 2254 FORM PETITION

[Doc. 2]

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

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 

Petitioner filed the instant petition for writ of habeas corpus on November 7, 2007, in the

United States District Court for the Northern District of California. By order of November 14,

2007, the action was transferred to this Court, and filed on December 3, 2007. (Court Doc. 1.)

DISCUSSION

Rule 2 of the "Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases" provide 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." 

Rule 2(c), 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Additionally, the Advisory Committee Note to these rules 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.' " 28 U.S.C. § 2254, p. 1111; Quoted approvingly in

Case 1:07-cv-01746-AWI -SMS Document 6 Filed 01/04/08 Page 1 of 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

2

Blackledge v. Allison, 431 U.S. 63, 75 n.7, 97 S.Ct. 1621 (1977). 

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).

In the instant petition, Petitioner attaches a narrative summary of his claims for relief. 

(Petition, attached Summary.) However, it is not clear what constitutional violations Petitioner is

attempting to raise. Nor has Petitioner demonstrated how the state courts’ adjudication of the

claim(s) was contrary to, or an unreasonable application of clearly established Supreme Court

authority. 

Petitioner did not adequately fill out the portion of the petition setting forth the grounds

for relief and providing a brief statement of the facts in support thereof. Instead, petitioner

makes reference to the documents he submitted in support of his petition. A petitioner may

submit attachments or exhibits to the petition, however, the form itself must be completed in its

entirety. Petitioner must submit an amended petition filling out the portion of the petition which

sets forth a brief statement of the ground for relief and supporting facts thereto. The court

stresses the impropriety of filing a blank petition along with attachments. This type of filing

requires the court to expend a significant amount of time attempting to determine what

petitioner’s claims are and whether he provides sufficient facts to support them. Such

information can be provided in a brief manner by completing the form petition. Moreover, it is

not the duty of federal courts to try to determine what might constitute a claim for relief or which

claims petitioner might intend to bring before the court. Such duty is upon the individual who

asserts a denial of his constitutional rights. The court will not read through a narrative

Case 1:07-cv-01746-AWI -SMS Document 6 Filed 01/04/08 Page 2 of 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

3

summation of the factual circumstances relating to his alleged constitutional violations in order

to determine what claims he is attempting to raise. The form petition is provided to petitioner to

assist in providing a brief list of claims fore relief, which enables the court to make a

determination that the claim and supporting facts allege a proper denial of a constitutional right. 

The court cannot proceed with the case until such claims are made clear. Thus, petitioner must

come forth with a statement of sufficient clarity and a brief statement of supporting facts to

enable a court to understand his argument and to render a decision on the matter. 

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 that clearly lists each ground for relief

petitioner intends to raise in this Court along with a brief statement of supporting

facts. 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. Petitioner should also note that every pleading to which an

amendment or supplement 

is permitted must be retyped and filed so that it is complete in itself without

reference to the prior or superseded pleading. Local Rule 15-220. 

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

petitioners filing pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254.

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

Recommendation that the petition be dismissed pursuant to Local Rule 11-110.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 4, 2008 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder 

icido3 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:07-cv-01746-AWI -SMS Document 6 Filed 01/04/08 Page 3 of 3