(HC) Gonzalez Garcia v. People ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 RODRIGO A. GONZALEZ GARCIA, No. 2:20-cv-0879-EFB P 12 Petitioner, 13 v. ORDER 14 PEOPLE, 15 Respondent. 16 17 Petitioner, proceeding pro se, seeks a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 18 He has also filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis which makes the required showing 19 and will be granted. ECF No. 5. The instant petition, however, does not state a cognizable 20 habeas claim for the reasons explained below. 21 I. Legal Standards 22 The court must dismiss a habeas petition or portion thereof if the prisoner raises claims 23 that are legally “frivolous or malicious” or fail to state a basis on which habeas relief may be 24 granted. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1),(2). The court must dismiss a habeas petition “[i]f it plainly 25 appears from the petition and any attached exhibits that the petitioner is not entitled to relief[.]” 26 Rule 4, Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. 27 ///// 28 ///// 1 II. Analysis 2 The court has reviewed the petition and cannot discern the nature of petitioner’s claims. 3 On the first page of the petition, petitioner alleges that his constitutional rights under the Fifth, 4 Sixth, and Eighth Amendments have been violated. ECF No. 1 at 2. Separately and more 5 specifically, he claims that: (1) his right to effective assistance of counsel was violated insofar as 6 his attorney was conflicted in some unspecified way; (2) that his right to a speedy trial was 7 violated; and (3) that the conditions in the Shasta County Jail pose an unreasonable risk of harm 8 due to the current Coronavirus pandemic. Id. The court has reviewed the remainder of the 9 petition and cannot discern what facts, if any, support each of the foregoing claims. The petition, 10 while only six pages total, is densely packed with legal non-sequiturs. Petitioner cites cases and 11 offers broad, conclusory articulations of law, but never sufficiently delves into the particulars of 12 his own conviction. The reader simply cannot track the arc of petitioner’s conviction and 13 determine when and how each of the aforementioned violations is alleged to have occurred. 14 Thus, the petition is deficient. See Mayle v. Felix, 545 U.S. 644, 655-56 (2005) (noting that Rule 15 2(c) demands that habeas petitioners plead their claims with particularity so that district courts 16 can determine whether the state should be ordered to show cause why the writ should not be 17 granted or whether the petition should be summarily dismissed without ordering a responsive 18 pleading). Accordingly, the court will dismiss the petition with leave to amend so that petitioner 19 may better articulate his claims.1 20 III. Conclusion 21 In light of the foregoing, it is ORDERED that: 22 1. Petitioner’s application to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 5) is GRANTED; and 23 ///// 24 ///// 25 ///// 26 1 The court has reviewed the additional “supplement” petitioner filed and has determined 27 that it does not remedy the deficiencies identified in this order. Further, allowing petitioner to amend will ensure that all of his claims and supporting facts are contained in one pleading rather 28 than 2 OU UV VVOTP SRT UMETOCTIL POR Meee PF AYyt VM VI 1 2. The petition (ECF No. 1) is DISMISSED with leave to amend. Petitioner shall file an 2 amended petition within thirty (30) days from the date of service of this order. Failure 3 to comply with this order may result in a recommendation that this action be 4 dismissed. 5 || DATED: June 22, 2020. Eg Vout 4 Lp 4H AA 6 EDMUND F. BRENNAN UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28