Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-01626/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-01626-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation
Respondent
John Holliday
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

JOHN HOLLIDAY, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

v. )

)

)

DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS )

AND REHABILITATION, )

)

Respondent. )

 )

1:07-cv-01626-AWI TAG HC

ORDER TO FILE FIRST AMENDED

PETITION WITHIN THIRTY DAYS

[Doc. 1]

ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT TO

SEND PETITION A BLANK FORM PETITION

FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

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

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. This action has been referred to this Court pursuant to

28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Local Rule 72-302.

On November 9, 2007, Petitioner filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus in this Court.

(Doc. 1). 

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 face of the petition and any exhibits annexed to 

it that the petitioner is not entitled to relief in the district court, the judge shall 

make an order for its summary dismissal and cause the petitioner to be notified. 

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

Case 1:07-cv-01626-AWI-TAG Document 7 Filed 01/15/08 Page 1 of 5
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

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 (9 Cir. 1971). th

B. Failure to State a Discernable Claim

Petitioner must state his claim with sufficient specificity. See Hendricks v. Vasquez 908

F.2d at 491-92; Wacht v. Cardwell, 604 F.2d 1245, 1246-47 (9th Cir.1979). Rule 2(c) of the

Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases states, in relevant part:

[The petition] shall specify all of the grounds for relief which are available to 

the petitioner of which he has or by the exercise of due diligence should have 

knowledge and shall set forth in summary form the facts supporting each of 

the grounds thus specified. It shall also state the relief requested. The petition 

shall be typewritten or legibly handwritten and shall be signed under penalty 

of perjury by the petitioner.

(Emphasis added.)

The instant petition is completely unclear. The Court cannot discern Petitioner’s claims

from the information provided. For example, under the section provided for listing his grounds

for relief, Petitioner has written,“Analoges estimates—statistical and deadly force review board

(rules/standards).” (Doc. 1, p. 4). Under “supporting facts” for that claim, Petitioner has written,

“Nature of crimes to be violated---Criminal law. For movement reactions. Resistance welfare sp

(HUD and GAU) unemployment social security banking (SEC notes and currency stock).” (Id.). 

Under Ground Two, Petitioner has written, “Digitalous estimates. Arm bar squad. Principles

and WASP (quarantine ordinances).” (Id). 

These claims are incomprehensible. As drafted, the petition fails to identify any

cognizable grounds for relief. Therefore, the petition must be dismissed. 

C. Failure to State a Federal Claim

The basic scope of habeas corpus is prescribed by statute. Subsection (c) of Section 2241

of Title 28 of the United States Code provides that habeas corpus shall not extend to a prisoner

unless he is “in custody in violation of the Constitution.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a) states:

The Supreme Court, a Justice thereof, a circuit judge, or a district court shall 

entertain an application for a writ of habeas corpus in behalf of a person in 

custody pursuant to a 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.

Case 1:07-cv-01626-AWI-TAG Document 7 Filed 01/15/08 Page 2 of 5
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

(emphasis added). See also, Rule 1 to the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United

States District Court. The Supreme Court has held that “the essence of habeas corpus is an attack

by a person in custody upon the legality of that custody . . .” Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475,

484 (1973).

Furthermore, in order to succeed in a petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, Petitioner

must demonstrate that the adjudication of his claim in state court

resulted in a decision that was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application

of, clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the

United States; or resulted in a decision that was based on an unreasonable 

determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented in the State court

proceeding.

28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1),(2). 

In the instant case, Petitioner fails to state a cognizable federal claim. Petitioner does not

allege a violation of the Constitution or federal law, nor does he argue that he is in custody in

violation of the Constitution or federal law. Petitioner does not allege that the adjudication of his

claims in state court “resulted in a decision that was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable

application of, clearly established Federal law, . . . or resulted in a decision that was based on an

unreasonable determination of the facts . . . .” 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 

D. Naming the Proper Respondent.

A petitioner seeking habeas corpus relief must name the state officer having custody of

him as the respondent to the petition. Rule 2 (a) of the Rules Governing § 2254 Cases; OrtizSandoval v. Gomez, 81 F.3d 891, 894 (9th Cir. 1996); Stanley v. California Supreme Court, 21

F.3d 359, 360 (9th Cir. 1994). Normally, the person having custody of an incarcerated petitioner

is the warden of the prison in which the petitioner is incarcerated because the warden has “dayto-day control over” the petitioner. Brittingham v. United States, 982 F.2d 378, 379 (9th Cir.

1992). However, the chief officer in charge of state penal institutions is also appropriate. OrtizSandoval, 81 F.3d at 894; Stanley, 21 F.3d at 360. When a petitioner is on probation or parole,

the proper respondent is his probation or parole officer and the official in charge of the parole or

probation agency or state correctional agency. Id. 

In this case, Petitioner asserts that he is incarcerated at the Wasco State Prison, Wasco,

Case 1:07-cv-01626-AWI-TAG Document 7 Filed 01/15/08 Page 3 of 5
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

California. The individual in charge of that facility is P. L. Vazquez. The “Department of

Corrections and Rehabilitation” is not the warden or individual in charge of the institution where

Petitioner is confined, and thus is not the person having day-to-day control over Petitioner. 

Petitioner therefore must file an amended petition, naming as Respondent the individual

responsible for day-to-day control over Petitioner. See, West v. Louisiana, 478 F.2d 1026, 1029

(5th Cir. 1973), vacated in part on other grounds, 510 F.2d 363 (5th Cir. 1975) (en banc)

(allowing petitioner to amend petition to name proper respondent); Ashley v. State of

Washington, 394 F.2d 125 (9th Cir. 1968) (same). Petitioner’s failure to name his custodian as a

respondent deprives this Court of personal jurisdiction to consider his petition. Stanley, 21 F.3d

at 360; Dunne v. Henman, 875 F.2d 244, 249 (9th Cir. 1989).

Petitioner will be given an opportunity to file a first amended petition. Petitioner is

advised that failure to file a petition with cognizable federal claims clearly stated within the time

allotted will result in a recommendation that the petition be dismissed and the action be

terminated. Petitioner is advised that the amended petition should be titled “First Amended

Petition” and reference the instant case number.

ORDER

Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED:

A. Within thirty (30) days of the date of service of this Order, Petitioner SHALL

FILE AN AMENDED PETITION in which Petitioner fills out the form provided

by the Court and properly states all grounds for relief in the form itself in a

succinct and clear fashion and names the proper Respondent. 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 is

permitted must be retyped or rewritten and filed so that it is complete in itself

without reference to the prior or superseded pleading. Local Rule 15-220. 

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

state prisoners filing pursuant to § 2254. 

Case 1:07-cv-01626-AWI-TAG Document 7 Filed 01/15/08 Page 4 of 5
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

5

Petitioner is forewarned that his failure to comply with this order may result in Findings

and Recommendations recommending that the Petition be dismissed pursuant to Local Rule 11-

110.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 14, 2008 /s/ Theresa A. Goldner 

j6eb3d UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

Case 1:07-cv-01626-AWI-TAG Document 7 Filed 01/15/08 Page 5 of 5