(HC) Ramirez v. Kovranvic ( 2023 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ISRAEL MALDONADO RAMIREZ, No. 1:23-cv-00268-SKO (HC) 12 Petitioner, ORDER DISMISSING PETITION WITH LEAVE TO FILE FIRST AMENDED 13 v. PETITION 14 ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT KOVRANVIC, TO PROVIDE PETITIONER WITH 15 BLANK HABEAS CORPUS FORMS Respondent. 16 [THIRTY DAY DEADLINE] 17 18 Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with a petition for 19 writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. He filed the instant petition on February 7, 20 2023. The petition is nonsensical, and the Court cannot ascertain Petitioner’s claims. Therefore, 21 the petition will be dismissed with leave to file a First Amended Petition. 22 DISCUSSION 23 A. Preliminary Review of Petition 24 Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases allows a district court to dismiss a 25 petition if it “plainly appears from the petition and any attached exhibits that the petitioner is not 26 entitled to relief in the district court . . . .” Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. 27 The Advisory Committee Notes to Rule 8 indicate that the court may dismiss a petition for writ of 28 habeas corpus, either on its own motion under Rule 4, pursuant to the respondent’s motion to 1 dismiss, or after an answer to the petition has been filed. Herbst v. Cook, 260 F.3d 1039 (9th Cir. 2 2001). 3 B. Failure to State a Cognizable Federal Claim 4 The basic scope of habeas corpus is prescribed by statute. Title 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a) 5 states: 6 The Supreme Court, a Justice thereof, a circuit judge, or a district court shall entertain an application for a writ of habeas corpus in behalf of a person in custody 7 pursuant to a judgment of a State court only on the ground that he is in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States. 8 9 (emphasis added). See also Rule 1 to the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United 10 States District Court. The Supreme Court has held that “the essence of habeas corpus is an attack 11 by a person in custody upon the legality of that custody . . .” Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 12 484 (1973). 13 To succeed in a petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, Petitioner must also demonstrate 14 that the adjudication of his claim in state court 15 (1) resulted in a decision that was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme 16 Court of the United States; or (2) resulted in a decision that was based on an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented in the 17 State court proceeding. 18 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1),(2). 19 Additionally, Rule 2(c) of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases requires that the petition: 20 (1) Specify all the grounds for relief available to the petitioner; (2) State the facts supporting each ground; 21 (3) State the relief requested; (4) Be printed, typewritten, or legibly handwritten; and 22 (5) Be signed under penalty of perjury by the petitioner or by a person authorized to sign it for the petitioner under 28 U.S.C. § 2242. 23 24 The instant petition is deficient for a number of reasons. First, the Court cannot ascertain 25 whether Petitioner is challenging his conviction or his confinement as he provides no information 26 on his conviction. Second, Petitioner fails to state whether he pursued relief in any state court. 27 He names several state courts, but in the sections provided for setting forth the nature of the 28 proceeding and the grounds raised, Petitioner provides only statements which make no sense. 1 Thus, the Court cannot discern whether the petition is exhausted. Third, Petitioner fails to set 2 forth any discernable ground for relief. He is apparently dissatisfied with the outcome of cases 3 before Magistrate Judges Stanley Boone and Erica Grosjean, but the comments thereafter are 4 lewd, vulgar and nonsensical. Petitioner fails to clearly specify his grounds for relief, the facts 5 supporting his grounds, and the relief requested. 6 For the foregoing reasons, the petition must be dismissed. Petitioner will be granted an 7 opportunity to file a First Amended Petition curing these deficiencies. Petitioner is advised that 8 he should entitle his pleading, “First Amended Petition,” and he should reference the instant case 9 number. Failure to comply with this order will result in dismissal of the action. 10 ORDER 11 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 12 1) The Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE 13 for failure to state a claim; 14 2) Petitioner is GRANTED thirty days from the date of service of this order to file a 15 First Amended Petition; and 16 3) The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to provide Petitioner with a blank habeas corpus 17 form. 18 IT IS SO ORDERED. 19 20 Dated: February 23, 2023 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto . UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28