Source: http://ca.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.20111206_0001973.SCA.htm/qx
Timestamp: 2016-10-26 23:35:13
Document Index: 595847653

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 2254', '§ 1914', '§ 2241', '§ 84', '§ 2254', '§ 2254']

| Isaac Christian Serrano v. California Fourth Appellate District Court of Appeals
Isaac Christian Serrano v. California Fourth Appellate District Court of Appeals
ISAAC CHRISTIAN SERRANO,PETITIONER,v.CALIFORNIA FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS, RESPONDENT.
Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, along with a request to proceed in forma pauperis. (See ECF Nos. 1, 2.)
Petitioner has not paid the $5 filing fee and has filed a request to proceed in forma pauperis which reflects a balance of $82.01 in his prison trust account. The filing fee associated with this type of action is $5.00. See 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a). It appears Petitioner can pay the requisite filing fee. Accordingly, the Court DENIES the request to proceed in forma pauperis.
A petition for writ of habeas corpus may be filed in the United States District Court of either the judicial district in which the petitioner is presently confined or the judicial district in which he was convicted and sentenced. See 28 U.S.C. § 2241(d); Braden v. 30th Judicial Circuit Court, 410 U.S. 484, 497 (1973). Petitioner is presently confined at Calipatria State Prison, located in Imperial County, which is within the jurisdictional boundaries of the United States District Court for the Southern District of California. See 28 U.S.C. § 84(d). Petitioner does not specify where his state court conviction occurred although it appears he may have been convicted in the Superior Court of Riverside County, California. (See Pet. at 2.) Thus, it is currently unclear whether this Court has jurisdiction in this matter. Petitioner must tell the Court where he suffered the conviction which he seeks to challenge in this matter.
Here, Petitioner has incorrectly named "California Fourth Appellate District Court of Appeals," as Respondent. In order for this Court to entertain the Petition filed in this action, Petitioner must name the warden in charge of the state correctional facility in which Petitioner is presently confined or the Director of the California Department of Corrections. Brittingham v. United States, 982 F.2d 378, 379 (9th Cir. 1992) (per curiam).
In addition, Rule 2(c) of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases states that the petition "shall set forth in summary form the facts supporting each of the grounds . . . specified [in the petition]." Rule 2(c), 28 U.S.C. foll. § 2254. SeealsoBoehme v. Maxwell, 423 F.2d 1056, 1058 (9th Cir. 1970) (trial court's dismissal of federal habeas proceeding affirmed where petitioner made conclusory allegations instead of factual allegations showing that he was entitled to relief). Here, Petitioner has violated Rule 2(c) because he fails to state grounds for relief in the Petition. While courts should liberally interpret pro se pleadings with leniency and understanding, this should not place on the reviewing court the entire onus of ferreting out grounds for relief. Zichko v. Idaho, 247 F.3d 1015, 1020-21 (9th Cir. 2001).
This Court would have to engage in a tenuous analysis in order to attempt to identify and make sense of the Petition and its numerous attachments. In order to satisfy Rule 2(c), Petitioner must point to a "real possibility of constitutional error." Cf. Blackledge v. Allison, 431 U.S. 63, 75 n.7 (1977) (internal quotation marks omitted). Facts must be stated, in the petition, with sufficient detail to enable the Court to determine, from the face of the petition, whether further habeas corpus review is warranted. Adams v. Armontrout, 897 F.2d 332, 334 (8th Cir. 1990). Moreover, the allegations should be sufficiently specific to permit the respondent to assert appropriate objections and defenses. Harris v. Allen, 739 F. Supp. 564, 565 (W.D. Okla. 1989). Here, the lack of grounds for relief in the Petition prevents the Respondent from being able to assert appropriate objections and defenses.
Rule 2(c) of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases provides that "[t]he petition shall be typewritten or legibly handwritten and shall be signed under penalty of perjury by the petitioner." Rule 2(c), 28 U.S.C. foll. § 2254 (emphasis added). Here, Petitioner has failed to sign the Petition.
For the foregoing reasons, the Court DENIES Petitioner's request to proceed in forma pauperis, and DISMISSES the case without prejudice and with leave to amend for Petitioner's failure to demonstrate venue is proper in this Court, allege exhaustion of state judicial remedies, name a proper respondent, state grounds for relief in the petition, use the proper form, and sign the petition. To have this case reopened, Petitioner must submit the requisite fee AND file a First Amended Petition no later than February 7, 2012 in conformance with this Order. The Clerk of Court is directed to send Petitioner a blank First Amended Petition form along with a copy of this Order.