(HC) Parker v. The People of California ( 2024 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 DEWAYNE KEITH PARKER, Case No. 1:24-cv-00158-SAB-HC 12 Petitioner, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION TO DISMISS PETITION FOR WRIT OF 13 v. HABEAS CORPUS WITHOUT PREJUDICE 14 THE PEOPLE OF CALIFORNIA, ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT TO RANDOMLY ASSIGN DISTRICT 15 Respondent. JUDGE 16 17 Petitioner, currently housed at the Fresno County jail, is proceeding pro se with a petition 18 for writ of habeas corpus. 19 I. 20 BACKGROUND 21 On February 2, 2024, the Court received the instant petition for writ of habeas corpus. 22 (ECF No. 1). On February 6, 2024, the Court granted Petitioner leave to amend the petition to 23 address certain deficiencies within thirty days. (ECF No. 4.) That same day, the Court received a 24 “letter of modification” that did not address the deficiencies. (ECF No. 6.) To date, no amended 25 petition has been filed, and the time for doing so has passed. 26 /// 27 /// /// 1 II. 2 DISCUSSION 3 Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases1 requires preliminary review of a 4 habeas petition and allows a district court to dismiss a petition before the respondent is ordered 5 to file a response, if it “plainly appears from the petition and any attached exhibits that the 6 petitioner is not entitled to relief in the district court.” Rule 4, Rules Governing Section 2254 7 Cases in the United States District Courts (“Habeas Rules”), 28 U.S.C. foll. § 2254. 8 Habeas Rule 2(c) states that a petition must: 9 (1) specify all the grounds for relief available to the petitioner; (2) state the facts supporting each ground; 10 (3) state the relief requested; (4) be printed, typewritten, or legibly handwritten; and 11 (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. 12 § 2242. 13 Habeas Rule 2(d) further provides that “[t]he petition must substantially follow either the form 14 appended to these rules or a form prescribed by a local district-court rule.” 15 Here, the petition consists of one hand-written page listing various case citations and 16 what appears to be the case numbers of his proceedings in the California Court of Appeal, Fifth 17 Appellate District. (ECF No. 1.) There are no factual allegations whatsoever and the petition is 18 not signed under penalty of perjury. Petitioner was provided the opportunity to address these 19 deficiencies and has failed to file an amended petition. As Petitioner does not specify any 20 grounds for relief, state the supporting facts, or state the relief requested, and given the petition is 21 not signed under penalty of perjury, the Court finds dismissal without prejudice is warranted. 22 III. 23 RECOMMENDATION & ORDER 24 Based on the foregoing, the Court HEREBY RECOMMENDS that the petition for writ of 25 habeas corpus be DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. 26 27 1 The Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases apply to § 2241 habeas petitions. See Rule 1(b) of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases (“The district court may apply any or all of these rules to a habeas corpus petition not covered 1 Further, the Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to randomly assign this action to a District 2 | Judge. 3 This Findings and Recommendation is submitted to the assigned United States District 4 | Court Judge, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(B) and Rule 304 of the Local 5 | Rules of Practice for the United States District Court, Eastern District of California. Within 6 | THIRTY (30) days after service of the Findings and Recommendation, Petitioner may file 7 | written objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be 8 | captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendation.” The assigned 9 | United States District Court Judge will then review the Magistrate Judge’s ruling pursuant to 28 10 | U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). The parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified 11 | time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 12 | 834, 839 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)). 13 14 IT IS SO ORDERED. DAM Le 15 | Dated: _ May 24, 2024 16 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28