Clark v. Jaime

[7] 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA [10] 11 THOMAS WALTER CLARK, Case No.: 20cv0422-LAB (AHG) 12 Petitioner, ORDER DISMISSING CASE 13 v. WITHOUT PREJUDICE 14 GEORGE JAIME, Warden 15 Respondent. [16] 17 Petitioner has filed a Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 18 § 2254 but has failed to pay the $5.00 filing fee or submit a request to proceed in forma 19 pauperis. (ECF No. 1.) The Petition is subject to dismissal without prejudice due to 20 Petitioner’s failure to satisfy the filing fee requirement and failure to state a cognizable 21 federal habeas claim. 22 FAILURE TO SATISFY FILING FEE REQUIREMENT 23 Because this Court cannot proceed until Petitioner has either paid the $5.00 filing 24 fee or qualified to proceed in forma pauperis, the Court DISMISSES the case without 25 prejudice. To have this case reopened, Petitioner must submit, no later than May 11, 26 2020, a copy of this Order with the $5.00 fee or with adequate proof of his inability to pay 27 the fee. 28 / / / 1 FAILURE TO STATE A COGNIZABLE HABEAS CLAIM 2 Title 28, United States Code, § 2254 (a), sets forth the following scope of review for 3 federal habeas corpus claims: 4 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 [5] in custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court only on the ground that 6 he is in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States. [8] 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (a) (emphasis added). 9 Thus, to present a cognizable federal habeas corpus claim under § 2254, a state 10 prisoner must allege both that he is in custody pursuant to a “judgment of a State court,” 11 and that he is in custody in “violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United 12 States.” See 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (a). In addition, Rule 2(c) of the Rules Governing Section 13 2254 Cases states that the petition must “specify all grounds for relief available to the 14 petitioner [and] state the facts supporting each ground.” Rule 2(c), 28 U.S.C. foll. § 2254. 15 The Petition here presents two claims. In the section of the petition form requesting 16 a statement of the grounds for relief in claim one, Petitioner merely states: “Assembly Bill 17 Number 2942,” and in the section requesting a statement of facts supporting that claim he 18 states: “See Attached Motion/Documentation.” (ECF No. 1 at 6.) In the section requesting 19 a statement of the ground for relief in claim two he states: “Discovery-Penal Code Section 20 1054.9,” and in the section of the form requesting a statement of facts supporting that claim 21 he states: “See Attached Motion/Documentation.” (Id. at 7.) 22 The documents attached to the Petition supporting claim one indicate that 23 Petitioner’s state court motion “appears to be a request for resentencing pursuant to Senate 24 Bill 620. . . . Petitioner appears to assert that he is entitled to retroactive relief pursuant to 25 Senate Bill 620; however, his legal reasoning is heavily disjointed and unclear. Petitioner 26 also attaches, without context, various unauthenticated exhibits that appear to be related 27 [to] his underlying case and/or Petitioner’s medical treatment.” (Id. at 31.) Although a 28 federal habeas petitioner can in some circumstances rely on documents attached to his 1 petition to supply a factual basis for his claims, see Ross v. Williams, __F.3d__, No. 162 16533, 2020 WL 878518 at *8 (9th Cir. Feb. 24, 2020), in order to satisfy Rule 2(c), 3 Petitioner must identify grounds for relief which point to a “real possibility of constitutional 4 error.” Blackledge v. Allison, 431 U.S. 63 , 75 n.7 (1977). Facts and claims must be stated, 5 in the petition, with sufficient detail to enable the Court to determine, from the face of the 6 petition, whether further habeas corpus review is warranted. Adams v. Armontrout, 897 7 F.2d 332 , 334 (8th Cir. 1990). Moreover, the allegations should be sufficiently specific to 8 permit the respondent to assert appropriate objections and defenses. Harris v. Allen, 739 9 F. Supp. 564, 565 (W.D. Okla. 1989). 10 Petitioner has violated Rule 2(c) by failing to identify the grounds for relief as to 11 claim one in the Petition, but relying instead on attached state court documents, many of 12 which do not appear to be relevant to his claim and which indicate the state court itself was 13 unsure of the legal basis of his claim. This Court would have to engage in a tenuous 14 analysis in order to attempt to identify and make sense of the Petition and its attachments 15 with respect to claim one. The manner claim one is presented prevents Respondent from 16 being able to assert appropriate objections and defenses and prevents the Court from 17 determining whether further habeas corpus review is warranted. With respect to claim one, 18 therefore, the Petition is subject to dismissal without prejudice for failure to “specify all 19 grounds for relief available to the petitioner [and] state the facts supporting each ground.” 20 Rule 2(c), 28 U.S.C. foll. § 2254; see also Boehme v. Maxwell, 423 F.2d 1056, 1058 (9th --------------------- 21 Cir. 1970) (affirming trial court’s dismissal of federal habeas petition where petitioner 22 made conclusory allegations instead of factual allegations showing he was entitled to 23 relief). Should Petitioner decide to file an amended petition, he is advised to clearly and 24 succinctly state the grounds for relief using the First Amended Petition form sent to 25 Petitioner with this Order. 26 It is also clear claim two does not present a cognizable federal habeas claim. 27 Petitioner references the state court denial of his motion for post-conviction discovery in 28 which he sought state court documents which he apparently intended to use to challenge 1 ||his plea agreement. (See ECF No. 1 at 7, 25-29.) A claim based on denial of discovery in 2 ||state court does not state a cognizable federal habeas claim. See Weatherford v. Bursey, 3 U.S. 545 , 559 (1977) (“There is no general constitutional right to discovery in a 4 ||criminal trial.”’) In addition, to the extent Petitioner merely speculates that the discovery 5 ||sought might be used to challenge his guilty plea, he does not state a cognizable habeas 6 ||claim. See Nettles v. Grounds, 830 F.3d 922, 933 (9th Cir. 2016) (en banc) (holding that 7 ||if success on claim would not necessarily result in immediate or speedier release from 8 confinement it does not lie within “the core of habeas” and must be pursued if at all under 9 U.S.C. § 1983 ). Although the Court has discretion under limited circumstances to 10 |/construe claim two as presenting a § 1983 claim, see id. at 935-36, the Court declines to 11 |/do so based on Petitioner’s failure to present any grounds in the Petition supporting this 12 ||claim. See Dist. Attorney’s Office for Third Judicial Dist. v. Osborne, 557 U.S. 52 , 69 13 (2009) (holding that even under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 “[f]ederal courts may upset a State’s 14 || postconviction [discovery] procedures only if they are fundamentally inadequate to 15 || vindicate the substantive rights provided.”’) 16 CONCLUSION AND ORDER 17 The Petition is DISMISSED without prejudice for failure to satisfy the filing fee 18 |/requirement and failure to state a cognizable federal habeas claim in the body of the 19 || Petition. If Petitioner wishes to proceed with this action he must, on or before May 11, 20 2020, either pay the $5.00 filing fee or submit an application to proceed in forma pauperis 21 ||and file a First Amended Petition which cures the defects of pleading identified in this 22 |/Order. The Clerk of Court will send a blank Southern District of California In Forma 23 || Pauperis application and a blank Southern District of California amended 28 U.S.C. § 2254 24 habeas petition form to Petitioner along with a copy of this Order. 25 IT IS SO ORDERED. 26 || Dated: March 10, 2020 lau A , (Buywy 7 Hon. Larry Alan Burns . Chief United States District Judge