(HC) Miller v. Warden of Valley State Prison ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 STEPHEN S. MILLER, Case No. 1:19-cv-01519-JDP 12 Petitioner, ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY PETITION SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED FOR 13 v. FAILURE TO STATE A COGNIZABLE HABEAS CLAIM 14 WARDEN OF VALLEY STATE PRISON, ECF No. 1 15 Respondent. 16 17 18 Petitioner Stephen S. Miller, a state prisoner without counsel, seeks a writ of habeas 19 corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. ECF No. 1. This matter is before us for preliminary review 20 under Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. See Rules Governing Section 2254 21 Cases, Rule 4; 28 U.S.C. § 2243. Under Rule 4, a district court must dismiss a habeas petition if 22 it “plainly appears” that the petitioner is not entitled to relief. See Valdez v. Montgomery, 918 23 F.3d 687, 693 (9th Cir. 2019); Boyd v. Thompson, 147 F.3d 1124, 1127 (9th Cir. 1998). To pass 24 screening, petitioner must allege a violation of “clearly established federal law”—meaning a 25 violation of a U.S. Supreme Court holding. See White v. Woodall, 572 U.S. 415, 419 (2014). At 26 this early stage, Rule 4 gives “courts an active role in summarily disposing of facially defective 27 habeas petitions.” Ross v. Williams, 896 F.3d 958, 968 (9th Cir. 2018) (citation omitted). The 28 1 | rule also “imposes on courts the duty to screen out’ petitions that are vague and conclusory. Id. 2 | We order petitioner to show cause why the petition should not be dismissed at screening for 3 | failure to state a cognizable habeas claim. 4 Petitioner presented vague and conclusory allegations in his petition. As grounds for 5 | relief, petitioner states that the Constitution and “all laws” apply to him and that his life sentence 6 || was improper; he also makes reference to his “mental health.” See generally ECF No. 1. 7 | Petitioner has failed to allege any violations of clearly established federal law. See White, 572 8 | U.S. at 419 (2014). We will not construct a habeas claim for petitioner. See Pliler v. Ford, 542 9 | US. 225, 226 (2004) (noting that judges, “impartial decisionmakers,” may not give legal advice 10 | to unrepresented litigants). Without an allegation of a constitutional rights violation arising from 11 | his criminal conviction or sentence, petitioner has failed to state a claim sufficient to pass Rule 4 12 || screening.! 13 | Order 14 We order petitioner to show cause why his petition should not be dismissed for failure to 15 | state a cognizable habeas claim. If petitioner wishes to continue seeking habeas relief, he should 16 | respond to this order within fourteen days from the date of service with an amended petition. The 17 | clerk’s office is directed to send petitioner a blank habeas petition form. 18 19 IT IS SO ORDERED. 20 Dated: _ February 21, 2020 21 UNIT#D STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 22 23 | No. 206. 24 25 26 ' Moreover, it appears that the petition is untimely. Absent rare circumstances, a habeas petition must be filed within one year of “the date on which the judgment became final by the conclusion 27 || of direct review or the expiration of the time for seeking such review.” 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1)(A). Here, petitioner was sentenced in 2007 and filed his federal habeas petition in 28 | 2019. ECF No. Lat 1.