(HC) Stribling v. Clark ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 AARON LAMONT STRIBLING, Case No. 1:19-cv-00834-JDP 12 Petitioner, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO DISMISS AMENDED PETITION FOR LACK 13 v. OF JURISDICTION 14 K. CLARK, OBJECTIONS DUE IN FOURTEEN DAYS 15 Respondent. ECF No. 6 16 ORDER DIRECTING CLERK TO ASSIGN CASE TO DISTRICT JUDGE 17 18 Petitioner Aaron Lamont Stribling is a state prisoner proceeding without counsel on an 19 amended petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. ECF No. 6. On February 7, 20 2020, we ordered petitioner to show cause why his amended petition should not be dismissed for 21 failure to state a claim. ECF No. 9. Petitioner has failed to respond to our order to show cause 22 and the time for doing so has passed. 23 The matter is before the court for preliminary review under Rule 4 of the Rules Governing 24 Section 2254 Cases. Under Rule 4, we must examine the habeas petition and order a response to 25 the petition unless it “plainly appears” that the petitioner is not entitled to relief. See Valdez v. 26 Montgomery, 918 F.3d 687, 693 (9th Cir. 2019); Boyd v. Thompson, 147 F.3d 1124, 1127 (9th 27 Cir. 1998). To pass screening, petitioner must allege a violation of “clearly established federal 28 law”—meaning a violation of a U.S. Supreme Court holding. See White v. Woodall, 572 U.S. 1 415, 419 (2014). At this early stage, Rule 4 gives “courts an active role in summarily disposing 2 of facially defective habeas petitions.” Ross v. Williams, 896 F.3d 958, 968 (9th Cir. 2018) 3 (citation omitted). The rule also “imposes on courts the duty to screen out” petitions that are 4 vague and conclusory. Id. 5 Discussion 6 Petitioner presented vague and conclusory allegations in his amended petition, which 7 included a three-page portion of the six-page California habeas petition form. In his filing, 8 petitioner states that he is seeking habeas relief because “a whole bunch of hating, prejudice, 9 racist people don’t want to let me out.” ECF No. 6 at 2. Instead of stating his grounds for relief, 10 petitioner refers the court to his “Let Freedom Ring” exhibit. Id. at 3. This exhibit is partially 11 illegible, vague, conclusory, and fails to state grounds for habeas relief. Petitioner has also failed 12 to state a request for relief. 13 We will not construct a habeas claim for petitioner. See Pliler v. Ford, 542 U.S. 225, 226 14 (2004) (noting that judges, “impartial decisionmakers,” may not give legal advice to pro se 15 litigants). Considering the entirety of petitioner’s submissions to this court, he has failed to state 16 a claim sufficient to pass Rule 4 screening. We recommend dismissal of his petition. 17 Certificate of Appealability 18 A petitioner seeking a writ of habeas corpus has no absolute right to appeal a district 19 court’s denial of a petition; he may appeal only in limited circumstances. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253; 20 Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 335-36 (2003). Rule 11 Governing Section 2254 Cases 21 requires a district court to issue or deny a certificate of appealability when entering a final order 22 adverse to a petitioner. See also Ninth Circuit Rule 22-1(a); United States v. Asrar, 116 F.3d 23 1268, 1270 (9th Cir. 1997). A certificate of appealability will not issue unless a petitioner makes 24 “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). This 25 standard requires the petitioner to show that “jurists of reason could disagree with the district 26 court’s resolution of his constitutional claims or that jurists could conclude the issues presented 27 are adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further.” Miller-El, 537 U.S. at 327; accord 28 Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). Here, petitioner has not made a substantial 1 showing of the denial of a constitutional right. Thus, we recommend that the court decline to 2 | issue a certificate of appealability. 3 | Order 4 The clerk of court is ordered to assign this case to a district judge who will review these 5 | findings and recommendations. 6 | Findings and Recommendations 7 For the foregoing reasons, we recommend that the court grant dismiss this case for failure 8 | to state aclaim. These findings and recommendations are submitted to the U.S. district judge 9 | presiding over the case under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 304. Within fourteen 10 | days of the service of the findings and recommendations, the parties may file written objections to 11 | the findings and recommendations with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Any such 12 | objections must be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and 13 | Recommendations.” The presiding district judge will then review the findings and 14 | recommendations under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). 15 16 IT IS SO ORDERED. 17 ( Caan Dated: _ February 28, 2020 18 UNIT#D STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 19 20 | No. 206. 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28