Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_20-cv-00695/USCOURTS-caed-1_20-cv-00695-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Juan M. Montenegro
Petitioner
J. Sullivan
Respondent

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

On May 18, 2020, Petitioner filed the instant petition for writ of habeas corpus in this Court. 

(Doc. 1.) Because the petition fails to state a cognizable federal claim for relief, the Court will 

recommend it be SUMMARILY DISMISSED without prejudice.

DISCUSSION

A. Preliminary Review of Petition

Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases requires the Court to make a preliminary 

review of each petition for writ of habeas corpus. The Court must summarily dismiss a petition “[i]f it 

plainly appears from the petition and any attached exhibits that the petitioner is not entitled to relief in 

the district court . . . .” Rule 4; O’Bremski v. Maass, 915 F.2d 418, 420 (9th Cir. 1990). 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 

JUAN M. MONTENEGRO,

 Petitioner,

v.

WARDEN J. SULLIVAN,

Respondent.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 1:20-cv-00695-JLT (HC)

ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT TO 

ASSIGN DISTRICT JUDGE

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION TO 

DISMISS PETITION 

[THIRTY-DAY OBJECTION DEADLINE]

Case 1:20-cv-00695-DAD-JLT Document 5 Filed 06/15/20 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

answer to the petition has been filed. 

B. Failure to State a Cognizable Federal Claim

The basic scope of habeas corpus is prescribed by statute. Title 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.

(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).

To succeed in a petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, Petitioner must demonstrate that the 

adjudication of his claim in state court

(1) 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 (2) 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 addition to the above, Rule 2(c) of the Rules Governing Section 2254 

Cases requires that the petition:

(1) Specify all the grounds for relief available to the petitioner;

(2) State the facts supporting each ground;

(3) State the relief requested;

(4) Be printed, typewritten, or legibly handwritten; and

(5) Be signed under penalty of perjury by the petitioner or by a person authorized to sign it for 

the petitioner under 28 U.S.C. § 2242.

Petitioner has failed to comply with Rule 2(c) by failing to specify any cognizable ground for 

relief or the facts supporting his claims. Rule 2(c) requires that each ground for relief be clearly stated, 

along with providing specific factual allegations that support the grounds for relief. O'Bremski v. 

Maass, 915 F.2d 418, 420 (9th Cir. 1990); United States v. Popoola, 881 F.2d 811, 812 (9th Cir. 

1989). It appears the single claim Petitioner makes is “to get release for better health care due to his 

disability.” (Doc. 1 at 3.) Petitioner fails to describe the severity of his mental and physical symptoms, 

the treatments he has received or why he considers those treatments to be inadequate. Petitioner fails 

Case 1:20-cv-00695-DAD-JLT Document 5 Filed 06/15/20 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

to state a claim on the ground that he is in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of 

the United States. Because Petitioner fails to state a claim cognizable on federal habeas review, the 

Court lacks jurisdiction to review the petition and will recommend that the petition be dismissed. 

Additionally, the defects in his pleading are not capable of being cured through amendment. See

Akhtar v. Mesa, 698 F.3d 1202, 1212-13 (9th Cir. 2012).

ORDER

The Court DIRECTS the Clerk of Court to assign a district judge to the case.

RECOMMENDATION

Accordingly, the Court RECOMMENDS that the habeas corpus petition be SUMMARILY 

DISMISSED without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction.

This Findings and Recommendation is submitted to the United States District Court Judge

assigned to this case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(B) and Rule 304 of the

Local Rules of Practice for the United States District Court, Eastern District of California. Within

thirty days after being served with a copy, Petitioner may file written objections with the Court. Such 

a document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendation.” 

The Court will then review the Magistrate Judge’s ruling pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(C). 

Failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s 

order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 13, 2020 /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:20-cv-00695-DAD-JLT Document 5 Filed 06/15/20 Page 3 of 3