(HC) Clark v. Black ( 2021 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ALPHONSO R. CLARK, Case No. 2:21-cv-02017-JDP (HC) 12 Petitioner, AMENDED ORDER FINDING THAT THE PETITION DOES NOT STATE A 13 v. COGNIZABLE CLAIM AND GIVING LEAVE TO AMEND WITHIN SIXTY DAYS 14 CINDY BLACK & ROB BONTA, ECF No. 1 15 Respondents. 16 17 Petitioner is incarcerated at the Napa State Hospital and is seeking a writ of habeas corpus 18 under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. ECF No. 1. The petition is before me for preliminary review under Rule 19 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. Under Rule 4, the judge assigned to the habeas 20 proceeding must examine the habeas petition and order a response to the petition unless it 21 “plainly appears” that the petitioner is not entitled to relief. See Valdez v. Montgomery, 918 F.3d 22 687, 693 (9th Cir. 2019); Boyd v. Thompson, 147 F.3d 1124, 1127 (9th Cir. 1998). Petitioner has 23 not adequately developed his claims, and the petition cannot proceed. 24 Petitioner argues that his parole was revoked in March of 2018 for failure to be compliant 25 with psychiatric medication. ECF No. 1 at 4. He raises three claims but does not contextualize 26 them. 27 First, he claims that neither the police report nor body camera footage shows that he acted 28 strangely. Id. at 5. Petitioner does not elaborate but refers the reader to an attached a copy of the 1 police report. The report states that police responded to an apartment in San Francisco and spoke 2 with a physician on the scene. Id. at 9. The physician identified herself as Lynette Suarez and 3 stated that she was affiliated with “MHM Services, Inc. – Golden Gate CONREP.” Id. Suarez 4 told police officers that petitioner was “psychiatrically decompensating” and exhibiting 5 “increased agitation and paranoid ideation about his roommates and friends.” Id. Petitioner was 6 taken into custody without incident. Id. Nothing in the report obviously supports petitioner’s 7 claim, and he must do more to develop that claim. 8 Second, petitioner claims that the observations of jail health services do not support the 9 allegation that he was “out of touch with reality.” Id. at 5. Again, he provides no context of his 10 own and instead refers the reader to a report. Id. That report does state that petitioner was acting 11 normally, save for a slightly elevated mood, but petitioner must do more to connect this report to 12 the psychiatric confinement that he is attacking. Id. at 10-12. I cannot tell whether this report 13 was considered by the relevant decision-makers and, if so, what other evidence might have 14 influenced their decision to confine him to Napa State Hospital. Put another way, a single report 15 showing that petitioner was acting normally for a span of time does not, standing alone, support a 16 habeas grant. 17 Third, petitioner claims that a lab report shows that all of his medications were in his 18 system. Id. at 5. I have reviewed the report and, again, conclude that petitioner must do more to 19 explain how the findings of the report support his release from Napa State Hospital. I note that 20 the lab report is dated December 2017, id. at 14, and thus is not necessarily probative of what 21 medication levels were in petitioner’s system at the time relevant to the revocation of his parole in 22 March 2018. 23 I will grant petitioner leave to amend so that he may develop his claims in greater detail. 24 If petitioner does not file another amended petition, I will recommend that this action be 25 dismissed. 26 It is therefore ORDERED that: 27 28 1 1. Petitioner may file an amended petition within sixty days of this order’s entry. If 2 | he does not, I will recommend that the current petition be dismissed for the reasons stated in this 3 | order. 4 2. The Clerk of Court is directed to send petitioner a federal habeas form. 5 6 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: _ November 9, 2021 Q_—_—. 8 JEREMY D. PETERSON 9 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28