Blanton v. Barnes

• Court: District Court, S.D. California
• Decided: October 1, 2024
• Docket: 3:24-cv-01278
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 DERRIK BLANTON, Case No.: 3:24-cv-1278-JO-SBC

11 Petitioner, ORDER DISMISSING CASE 12 v. WITHOUT PREJUDICE 13 14 DEBORAH BARNES, DANA M. SABRAW, BARRY TED MOSKOWITZ, 15 CDCR CARILLO, D.O.J., 16 Respondents. 17 18 19 Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas 20 Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Dkt. 1. For the reasons discussed below, the Petition 21 is dismissed without prejudice. 22 First, this case cannot proceed because Petitioner has neither paid the $5.00 filing 23 fee nor moved to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”). The Court therefore DISMISSES 24 the case without prejudice. See Rule 3(a), 28 U.S.C. foll. § 2254. If Petitioner wishes to 25 proceed with this case, he must either pay the $5.00 fee or submit adequate proof of his 26 inability to pay the fee no later than October 31, 2024. 27 Second, the Petition does not clearly state a legally cognizable claim. “Rule 2(c) of 1 grounds for relief available to the petitioner’ and ‘(2) state the facts supporting each 2 ground.’” Marks v. Davis, 106 F.4th 941, 996 (9th Cir. 2024) (citing Rule 2(c), 28 U.S.C. 3 foll. § 2254.) This rule “demand[s] that habeas petitioners plead with particularity.” Mayle 4 v. Felix, 545 U.S. 644, 656 (2005). To satisfy Rule 2, the Petitioner must state with 5 sufficient detail to enable the Court to determine, from the face of the petition, whether 6 further habeas corpus review is warranted. Adams v. Armontrout, 897 F.2d 332, 334 (8th 7 Cir. 1990). Moreover, the allegations need to be sufficiently specific to permit the 8 respondent to assert appropriate objections and defenses. Harris v. Allen, 739 F. Supp. 9 564, 565 (W.D. Okla. 1989). 10 Here, Petitioner does not clearly state the grounds for habeas relief nor provide 11 specific factual allegations in support of such relief.1 The Petition is 161 pages long and 12 while it references Petitioner’s state court conviction, it is largely comprised of dozens of 13 documents unrelated to this conviction. These include orders in civil cases from various 14 courts, medical and mental health records, administrative grievances from various prisons, 15 and photocopies of magazine or journal articles. See generally, Dkt. 1. The Petition fails 16 because the Court cannot discern the specific grounds for habeas relief or the factual basis 17 alleged. 18 Given his pro se status, the Court will grant leave to amend. If Petitioner chooses to 19 submit an amended Petition, he is advised as follows: 20 1. He must clearly and succinctly state all factual grounds for relief using the First 21 Amended Petition form sent to Petitioner with this order. 22 2. He is further advised that habeas petitioners who wish to challenge either their 23 state court conviction or the length of their confinement in state prison, must first 24 25 26 1 To the extent the Petition includes allegations that appear to challenge the conditions of 27 Petitioner’s confinement, such claims are not cognizable on federal habeas. Challenges to conditions of confinement are typically brought pursuant to the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1983, while challenges to 1 exhaust state judicial remedies. 28 U.S.C. §§ 2254(b), (c); Granberry v. Greer, 2 481 U.S. 129, 133–34 (1987). To exhaust state judicial remedies, a California 3 state prisoner must present the California Supreme Court with a fair opportunity 4 to rule on the merits of every issue raised in his or her federal habeas petition. 28 5 U.S.C. §§ 2254(b), (c); Granberry, 481 U.S. at 133–34. Moreover, to properly 6 exhaust state court remedies a petitioner must allege, in state court, how one or 7 more of his or her federal rights have been violated. Duncan v. Henry, 513 U.S. 8 364, 365–66 (1995) (“If state courts are to be given the opportunity to correct 9 alleged violations of prisoners’ federal rights, they must surely be alerted to the 10 fact that the prisoners are asserting claims under the United States 11 Constitution.”). If Petitioner has already raised his claims in the California 12 Supreme Court, he must provide this information in his Petition. Matthews v. 13 Evatt, 105 F.3d 907, 911 (4th Cir. 1997); see also Breard v. Pruett, 134 F.3d 615, 14 619 (4th Cir. 1998); Lambert v. Blackwell, 134 F.3d 506, 513 (3d Cir. 1997); 15 Oyler v. Allenbrand, 23 F.3d 292, 300 (10th Cir. 1994). 16 3. Finally, Petitioner has must name the state officer having custody of him as the 17 respondent. Ortiz-Sandoval v. Gomez, 81 F.3d 891, 894 (9th Cir. 1996) (citing 18 Rule 2(a), 28 U.S.C. foll. § 2254). “The ‘state officer having custody’ may be 19 ‘either the warden of the institution in which the petitioner is incarcerated . . . or 20 the chief officer in charge of state penal institutions.’” Id. (quoting Rule 2(a), 28 21 U.S.C. foll. § 2254 advisory committee’s note). In order for this Court to 22 entertain a petition for habeas corpus, a petitioner must name the warden 23 currently in charge of the state correctional facility in which he is presently 24 confined or the Secretary of the California Department of Corrections and 25 Rehabilitation. Brittingham v. United States, 982 F.2d 378, 379 (9th Cir. 1992) 26 (per curiam). 27 CONCLUSION AND ORDER have this case reopened, Petitioner must (1) pay the filing fee or provide adequate proof of his inability to pay AND (2) file an amended petition which cures the pleading deficiencies outlined above, no later than October 31, 2024. For Petitioner’s convenience, the Clerk of Court shall include with this Order, a blank application to proceed in forma pauperis form and a blank form petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: October 1, 2024 Dee Hon. Jinsook Ohta United States District Judge