Opinion ID: 543015
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Propriety of District Court's Dismissal

Text: 9 In its response to Obremski's petition, the parole board moved for an order dismissing this case pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b) on the ground that the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus under 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2254 fails to raise any issue of federal law. The district judge stated: I grant the Board's motion to dismiss. 10 The Supreme Court has stated that the view that a Rule 12(b)(6) motion is an appropriate motion in a habeas corpus proceeding is erroneous. Browder v. Director, Ill. Dept. of Corrections, 434 U.S. 257, 269 n. 14, 98 S.Ct. 556, 563 n. 14, 54 L.Ed.2d 521 (1978). Nevertheless, rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 in the United States District Courts explicitly allows a district court to dismiss summarily the petition on the merits when no claim for relief is stated. Gutierrez v. Griggs, 695 F.2d 1195, 1198 (9th Cir.1983). Because the district court's dismissal was based on its conclusion that the facts alleged in Obremski's petition did not entitle him to habeas relief as a matter of law, we review the district court's order as a summary dismissal under Rule 4.