(HC) Hatchett v. Clark ( 2019 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 CECIL JEROME HATCHETT, No. 2:19-cv-1159 AC P 12 Petitioner, 13 v. ORDER and 14 KEN CLARK, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 15 Respondent. 16 17 Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with a proposed 18 amended petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. For the reasons set 19 forth below, the undersigned recommends that this case be dismissed. 20 Under Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases, this court is required to conduct 21 a preliminary review of all petitions for writ of habeas corpus filed by state prisoners. Upon 22 review of petitioner’s original filing (ECF No. 1), which the undersigned found “confusing at 23 best,” the court directed petitioner to submit a proposed amended petition on the form provided, 24 fully setting forth his claims and demonstrating the exhaustion of his claims in the state courts. 25 ECF No. 9. 26 Petitioner’s proposed amended petition, ECF No. 10, fails to correct the defects previously 27 identified and fails to comply with the court’s directions. The amended complaint, which is not 28 set forth on the court’s form, indicates that petitioner is attempting to challenge the procedures 1 and evidence relied upon by law enforcement officials in arresting petitioner for a parole violation 2 in 1993, interrogating him over a period of several months, and relying on fabricated testimony 3 and withholding crucial evidence in Yolo County Superior Court. Petitioner also alleges in broad 4 terms that he has been subject to cruel and unusual punishment and denied due process; he 5 invokes Marsy’s Law, and asserts misapplication of California’s “Three Strikes Law.” These 6 putative claims, however, lack any clearly articulated factual foundation. 7 Additionally, petitioner’s narrative includes no reference to his attempts to pursue and 8 exhaust these matters in the state courts. Unexhausted petitions may, under limited 9 circumstances, be stayed pending exhaustion, upon a showing that “‘[1] petitioner had good cause 10 for his failure to exhaust, [2] his unexhausted claims are potentially meritorious, and [3] there is 11 no indication that the petitioner engaged in intentionally dilatory litigation tactics.’” Mena v. 12 Long, 813 F.3d 907, 910, 912 (9th Cir. 2016) (quoting Rhines v. Weber, 544 U.S. 269, 278 13 (2005)). Because the instant proposed amended petition contains no clearly identifiable claims, 14 the court is unable to assess the merits of any potentially cognizable claims or whether good 15 cause supports petitioner’s apparent failure to exhaust those claims. 16 Finally, review of the cases petitioner has previously filed in this court1 indicates that he 17 has attempted on numerous occasions, without success, to pursue a petition for writ of habeas 18 corpus. Significantly, the first such case, Hatchett v. Henry, Case No. 2:97-cv-0458 GEB GGH 19 P, was dismissed based on petitioner’s failure to exhaust state court remedies. See id., ECF Nos. 20 5, 6. 21 There being no clear ground upon which this case may proceed, the undersigned will 22 recommend its dismissal without prejudice. Amendment having failed to appreciably improve 23 the petition, further amendment would be futile. 24 //// 25 26 1 This court may take judicial notice of its own records and the records of other courts. See United States v. Howard, 381 F.3d 873, 876 n.1 (9th Cir. 2004); United States v. Wilson, 631 27 F.2d 118, 119 (9th Cir. 1980); see also Fed. R. Evid. 201 (court may take judicial notice of facts that are capable of accurate determination by sources whose accuracy cannot reasonably be 28 questioned). 1 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Clerk of Court shall randomly assign a 2 | district judge to this action. 3 Further, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed without 4 | prejudice. 5 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 6 || assigned to this case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(). Within fourteen (14) 7 | days after being served with these findings and recommendations, petitioner may file written 8 || objections with the court. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate 9 || Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Petitioner is are advised that failure to file objections 10 | within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. 11 } Yist, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 12 | DATED: September 24, 2019 ~ 13 Chthien—Chare ALLISON CLAIRE 14 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28