Source: http://ca.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.20121213_0016839.ECA.htm/qx
Timestamp: 2016-10-28 08:29:55
Document Index: 318119053

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 2254', '§ 2254', '§ 2254', '§ 2254', '§ 2254', '§ 2254', '§ 2254', '§ 2254', '§ 2254', '§ 2254']

| Anthony Ramirez v. Tulare County
Anthony Ramirez v. Tulare County
ANTHONY RAMIREZ, PETITIONER,v.TULARE COUNTY, RESPONDENT.
ORDER DISMISSING PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS AND GRANTING LEAVE TO AMEND [Doc. 1]
Petitioner filed the instant petition for writ of habeas corpus on November 15, 2012.
Rule 4 of the Rules Governing § 2254 Cases requires the Court to make a preliminary review of each petition for writ of habeas corpus. The Court must dismiss a petition "[i]f it plainly appears from the face of the petition . . . that the petition is not entitled to relief." Rule 4 of the Rules Governing 2254 Cases; see also Hendricks v. Vasquez, 908 F.2d 490 (9th Cir. 1990). 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).
I. Improper 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 v. California Supreme Court, 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.
In this case, Petitioner names Tulare County, as Respondent. Although Petitioner may have been convicted in Tulare County, the County cannot be considered the person having dayto-day control over Petitioner.
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 at 1241. In Duncan, the United States Supreme Court reiterated the rule as follows:
On the form petition, Petitioner neglects to indicate whether he has exhausted the state court remedies. Because it is unclear what, if any, claims presented in the instant federal petition for writ of habeas corpus were exhausted in the state's highest court, Petitioner will be ordered to file an amended petition to indicate whether his claims have been exhausted. If possible, Petitioner should present to the Court documentary evidence that the claims were indeed presented to the California Supreme Court.
III. Failure to State Cognizable Claim
Where a petitioner files his federal habeas petition after the effective date of the Anti--
Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act ("AEDPA"), he can prevail only if he can show that the state court's adjudication of his claim:
28 U.S.C. § 2254(d). "Federal habeas relief may not be granted for claims subject to § 2254(d) unless it is shown that the earlier state court's decision "was contrary to" federal law then clearly established in the holdings of [the Supreme] Court." Harrington v. Richter, ------ U.S. --------, 131 S.Ct. 770, 785, 178 L.Ed.2d 624 (2011), citing 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1) and Williams v. Taylor, 539 U.S. 362, 412 (2000). Habeas relief is also available if the state court's decision "involved an unreasonable application" of clearly established federal law, or "was based on an unreasonable determination of the facts" in light of the record before the state court. Richter, 131 S.Ct. 785, citing 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1), (d)(2)).
The instant petition for writ of habeas corpus must be dismissed because the Court cannot decipher the nature of Petitioner's claims. Petitioner appears to present four grounds for relief, however, Petitioner's claims are vague and conclusory and do not present a constitutional challenge under § 2254. For instance, in Ground Two, Petitioner states "I was getting another lawyer in court but the District Attorney offices and the Judges did not let me do that at all because it was the Judges fail on that, straight up." (Pet. at 5.) Conclusory allegations do not warrant habeas relief. See Jones v. Gomez, 66 F.3d 199, 204-05 (9th Cir.1995) (holding that conclusory allegations made with no reference to the record or any document do not merit habeas relief). The Court cannot determine the exact nature of Petitioner's claims and the petition will be dismissed with leave to amend. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1); Jarvis v. Nelson, 440 F.2d at 14.
2. The Clerk of Court is directed to send Petitioner a blank § 2254 form petition
3. Within thirty (30) days from the date of service of this order Petitioner shall file an amended petition. Petitioner is advised that Local Rule 220 requires that an amended petition be complete in itself without reference to any prior pleading. As a general rule, an amended pleading supersedes the original pleading. See Loux v. Rhay, 375 F.2d 55, 57 (9th Cir. 1967). Once petitioner files an amended petition, the original petition no longer serves any function in the case. Therefore, in an amended petition, as in an original petition, each claim must be sufficiently alleged; and