Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-01374/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-01374-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Torrance Kendricks
Petitioner
People of the State of California
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

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 on August 27, 2014. (Doc. 1). 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

A. Failure To Adhere To The Specificity Requirement of Habeas Pleading.

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

TORRANCE KENDRICKS,

 Petitioner,

v.

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA,

Respondent.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 1:14-cv-01374-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 1:14-cv-01374-LJO-JLT Document 8 Filed 09/08/14 Page 1 of 4
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

Implicit in Rule 2(c) is that petitioners should not group together various disparate and unrelated claims 

of constitutional violations within one ground for relief. Rather, each constitutional claim should be

listed separately and distinctly, supported by its own allegations of fact.

Here, Petitioner lists three grounds for relief. The first ground is premised upon diplomatic 

immunity from prosecution by the state court. The second ground for relief, however, combines claims 

of an unlawful arrest, an unconstitutional search and seizure, a coerced confession, and a violation of 

Petitioner’s right to remain silent. Similarly, Ground three combines claims of denial of the right to 

counsel, an unconstitutional petit jury, prosecutorial misconduct in withholding exculpatory evidence, 

and the denial of Petitioner’s right to appeal. 

Grounds two and three clearly violate the specificity requirements for habeas pleading 

contained in Rule 2 by combining multiple and disparate constitutional claims within the same ground 

for relief. This is not merely a technical defect, but a practical problem since such “kitchen sink” 

pleadings make it extremely difficult for both Respondent and the Court to identify which underlying 

facts go with which claimed constitutional violations and to separately address and analyze those 

discrete constitutional violations. Grouping disparate claims together also makes it difficult for the 

Court to determine which, if any, of Petitioner’s claims have been fully exhausted in state court. 

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 separate and 

discrete claims for relief. 

B. Exhaustion of Remedies.

A petitioner who is in state custody and wishes to collaterally challenge his conviction by a 

petition for writ of habeas corpus must exhaust state judicial remedies. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(1). The 

exhaustion doctrine is based on comity to the state court and gives the state court the initial opportunity 

to correct the alleged constitutional deprivations. Coleman v. Thompson, 501 U.S. 722, 731 (1991); 

Rose v. Lundy, 455 U.S. 509, 518 (1982); Buffalo v. Sunn, 854 F.2d 1158, 1163 (9th Cir. 1988). 

A petitioner can satisfy the exhaustion requirement by providing the highest state court with a 

full and fair opportunity to consider each claim before presenting it to the federal court. Duncan v. 

Henry, 513 U.S. 364, 365 (1995); Picard v. Connor, 404 U.S. 270, 276 (1971); Johnson v. Zenon, 88 

Case 1:14-cv-01374-LJO-JLT Document 8 Filed 09/08/14 Page 2 of 4
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

F.3d 828, 829 (9th Cir. 1996). In this instance, the highest state court would be the California Supreme 

Court. A federal court will find that the highest state court was given a full and fair opportunity to 

hear a claim if the petitioner has presented the highest state court with the claim's factual and legal 

basis. Duncan, 513 U.S. at 365 (legal basis); Kenney v. Tamayo-Reyes, 504 U.S. 1, 112 S.Ct. 1715, 

1719 (1992) (factual basis). 

Additionally, the petitioner must have specifically told the state court that he was raising a 

federal constitutional claim. Duncan, 513 U.S. at 365-66; Lyons v. Crawford, 232 F.3d 666, 669 (9th 

Cir. 2000), amended, 247 F.3d 904 (2001); Hiivala v. Wood, 195 F.3d 1098, 1106 (9th Cir.1999); 

Keating v. Hood, 133 F.3d 1240, 1241 (9th Cir.1998). 

Here, Petitioner appears not to have presented any of the claims in Ground two, or the denial of 

the right to appeal argument in Ground three, to the California Supreme Court. In his amended 

petition, Petitioner must provide specific information regarding what claims he has raised in the 

California Supreme Court, when those claims were denied, as well as, if possible, copies of the state 

high court’s orders denying those claims.

C. Failure to Name A Proper Respondent.

A petitioner seeking habeas corpus relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 must name the state officer 

having custody of him as the respondent to the petition. Rule 2 (a) of the Rules Governing § 2254 

Cases; Ortiz-Sandoval 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 

"day-to-day control over" the petitioner. Brittingham v. United States, 982 F.2d 378, 379 (9th Cir. 

1992); see also, Stanley, 21 F.3d at 360. However, the chief officer in charge of state penal institutions 

is also appropriate. Ortiz, 81 F.3d at 894; Stanley, 21 F.3d at 360. Where 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. 

Here, Petitioner has named as Respondent “the People of the State of California.” However, 

“the People of the State of California” is not the warden or chief officer of the institution where 

Petitioner is confined and, thus, does not have day-to-day control over Petitioner. Petitioner is 

Case 1:14-cv-01374-LJO-JLT Document 8 Filed 09/08/14 Page 3 of 4
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

presently confined at the California State Prison, Sacramento, California. The current director or 

warden of that facility is Jeff Macomber. Jeff Macomber is the person Petitioner should name as 

Respondent.

Petitioner’s failure to name a proper respondent requires dismissal of his habeas petition for 

lack of jurisdiction. Stanley, 21 F.3d at 360; Olson v. California Adult Auth., 423 F.2d 1326, 1326 (9th 

Cir. 1970); see also, Billiteri v. United States Bd. of Parole, 541 F.2d 938, 948 (2nd Cir. 1976). 

However, the Court will give Petitioner the opportunity to cure this defect by filing an amended 

petition that names the proper respondent, such as the warden of his facility. 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). In any amended petition, Petitioner must name a 

proper respondent.

For all of the foregoing reasons, the instant petition is deficient. Petitioner will be required to 

file an amended petition containing sufficient information for the Court to proceed with the case.

Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

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 SUBMIT a FIRST

AMENDED PETITION that is in compliance with this Order. 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: September 8, 2014 /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:14-cv-01374-LJO-JLT Document 8 Filed 09/08/14 Page 4 of 4