DAVID SAMPSON HUNTER, No. 2:20-CV-1097-WBS-DMC-P Petitioner, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS v. Respondent. Petitioner, a county inmate proceeding pro se, brings this petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Pending before the Court is Respondent’s motion to dismiss, ECF No. 30. Respondent argues the Court should dismiss the petition because it fails to meet Rule 2(c) of the Rules governing Section 2254 Cases, which requires Petitioners to allege sufficient facts to establish the existence of an actionable claim. For the reasons discussed below, the Court agrees. Petitioner claims that, on January 4, 2019, police arrested Petitioner for a trespass violation. See ECF No. 15, pg. 1. He asserts that police illegally arrested him and took him to jail. See id. On May 29, 2020, Petitioner filed his habeas corpus petition. See ECF No. 1, pg. 1. On October 20, 2020, the Court dismissed the petition with leave to amend, directing Petitioner to name a proper Respondent and to sufficiently state all claims and requests for relief. See ECF No. 10. This action now proceeds on Petitioner's first amended petition, see ECF No. 15, pg. 1, timely filed pursuant to the Court’s October 20, 2020, order. As with the original petition, Petitioner outlines various “background/history” facts that are difficult to decipher. See ECF No 15. The Court understands the core of Petitioner’s claims as follows: Petitioner appears to claim that his arrest was illegally connected to the filming of a pornographic video with sex workers at a Motel 6. See id. at 1. It is unclear, however, who was filming and how Petitioner was connected to the sex workers. See id. After Petitioner’s arrest, he claims sheriffs refused to bring him to court. See id. Next, Petitioner asserts that court officials and sheriffs stole his mail—which appears to have some connection to his underlying arrest. See id. The Petitioners allegations become less clear as he appears to suggest that Deputy Robinson falsely reported that Petitioner “gassed him” in order to stage some sort of defense. See id. at 3. Petitioner then appears to allege that the court falsely found him mentally incompetent to stand trial and transferred him to Napa State hospital. See id. at 4. Petitioner alleges that Respondent violated his due process rights. As such, plaintiff claims he should receive monetary damages and a transfer to Crestwood hospital. See id. at 1-4. Respondent’s single argument is the Petitioner has failed to state a proper claim which is cognizable under § 2254 because the allegations in the petition are unclear, in violation of Rule 2(c). See ECF No. 30, pg. 2. Rule 2(c) describes the requirements of the actual petition in 2254 cases, which include issues related to form, content, scope, and efficiency. See Rule 2(c), Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. Under Rule 2(c), there are three main requirements pertaining to a petitioner’s factual allegations and relief requested. See id. The petitioner must specify all the grounds for relief available to the petitioner, state the facts supporting each ground, and state the relief requested. See id. In judging the adequacy of these petitions, federal courts have a general practice of holding pro se applications for relief to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers. See Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972). Yet, courts are only obligated to draw reasonable factual inferences in the petitioners favor and are not required to construct legal arguments for a pro se petitioner. See Jones v. Gomez, 66 F.3d 199, 204 (9th Cir. 1995) (finding that a habeas “petition must contain specific and particularized facts, not conclusory or general remarks”). “A prime purpose of Rule 2(c)’s demand that habeas petitioners plead with particularity is to assist the district court in determining whether the state should be ordered to show cause why the writ should not be granted.” Mayle v. Felix, 545 U.S. 644, 645 (2005). Furthermore, the Court in Mayle did explain that under Rule 8(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a pleading need only provide fair notice of what the claim is and the grounds upon which it rests, but noted, Rule 2(c) of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases is more demanding and is expected to state facts that point to a real possibility of constitutional error. See id. at 655. According to Respondent:
Petitioner’s filing does not comply with rule 2(c) because he did not clearly identify any grounds for relief, did not provide supporting facts, and did not state the relief he seeks. (Dkt.15.) This Court directed Petitioner to state all claims and requests for relief. (Dkt. 10.) Petitioner fails to do so in his first amended petition. (Dkt. 15.) His claims are unintelligible. “Federal courts are authorized to dismiss summarily any habeas petition that appears legally insufficient on its face.” McFarland v. Scott, 512 U.S. 849, 856 (1994). Unintelligible pleadings, like Petitioner’s, are dismissible because their incomprehensibility prejudices the opposing party. See Schmidt v. Herrmann, 614 F.2d 1221, 1224 (9th Cir. 1980); Guest v. Miller, 2014 WL 5528396, at *3 (C.D. Cal. 2014), report and recommendation adopted, 2014 WL 5581394 (C.D. Cal. 2014) (“Petitioner’s contention…is far too conclusory, unsupported, and unintelligible to plausibly lead to habeas relief). . . .
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
DAVID SAMPSON HUNTER, No. 2:20-CV-1097-WBS-DMC-P Petitioner, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS v. Respondent. Petitioner, a county inmate proceeding pro se, brings this petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Pending before the Court is Respondent’s motion to dismiss, ECF No. 30. Respondent argues the Court should dismiss the petition because it fails to meet Rule 2(c) of the Rules governing Section 2254 Cases, which requires Petitioners to allege sufficient facts to establish the existence of an actionable claim. For the reasons discussed below, the Court agrees. Petitioner claims that, on January 4, 2019, police arrested Petitioner for a trespass violation. See ECF No. 15, pg. 1. He asserts that police illegally arrested him and took him to jail. See id. On May 29, 2020, Petitioner filed his habeas corpus petition. See ECF No. 1, pg. 1. On October 20, 2020, the Court dismissed the petition with leave to amend, directing Petitioner to name a proper Respondent and to sufficiently state all claims and requests for relief. See ECF No. 10. This action now proceeds on Petitioner's first amended petition, see ECF No. 15, pg. 1, timely filed pursuant to the Court’s October 20, 2020, order. As with the original petition, Petitioner outlines various “background/history” facts that are difficult to decipher. See ECF No 15. The Court understands the core of Petitioner’s claims as follows: Petitioner appears to claim that his arrest was illegally connected to the filming of a pornographic video with sex workers at a Motel 6. See id. at 1. It is unclear, however, who was filming and how Petitioner was connected to the sex workers. See id. After Petitioner’s arrest, he claims sheriffs refused to bring him to court. See id. Next, Petitioner asserts that court officials and sheriffs stole his mail—which appears to have some connection to his underlying arrest. See id. The Petitioners allegations become less clear as he appears to suggest that Deputy Robinson falsely reported that Petitioner “gassed him” in order to stage some sort of defense. See id. at 3. Petitioner then appears to allege that the court falsely found him mentally incompetent to stand trial and transferred him to Napa State hospital. See id. at 4. Petitioner alleges that Respondent violated his due process rights. As such, plaintiff claims he should receive monetary damages and a transfer to Crestwood hospital. See id. at 1-4. Respondent’s single argument is the Petitioner has failed to state a proper claim which is cognizable under § 2254 because the allegations in the petition are unclear, in violation of Rule 2(c). See ECF No. 30, pg. 2. Rule 2(c) describes the requirements of the actual petition in 2254 cases, which include issues related to form, content, scope, and efficiency. See Rule 2(c), Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. Under Rule 2(c), there are three main requirements pertaining to a petitioner’s factual allegations and relief requested. See id. The petitioner must specify all the grounds for relief available to the petitioner, state the facts supporting each ground, and state the relief requested. See id. In judging the adequacy of these petitions, federal courts have a general practice of holding pro se applications for relief to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers. See Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972). Yet, courts are only obligated to draw reasonable factual inferences in the petitioners favor and are not required to construct legal arguments for a pro se petitioner. See Jones v. Gomez, 66 F.3d 199, 204 (9th Cir. 1995) (finding that a habeas “petition must contain specific and particularized facts, not conclusory or general remarks”). “A prime purpose of Rule 2(c)’s demand that habeas petitioners plead with particularity is to assist the district court in determining whether the state should be ordered to show cause why the writ should not be granted.” Mayle v. Felix, 545 U.S. 644, 645 (2005). Furthermore, the Court in Mayle did explain that under Rule 8(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a pleading need only provide fair notice of what the claim is and the grounds upon which it rests, but noted, Rule 2(c) of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases is more demanding and is expected to state facts that point to a real possibility of constitutional error. See id. at 655. According to Respondent:
Petitioner’s filing does not comply with rule 2(c) because he did not clearly identify any grounds for relief, did not provide supporting facts, and did not state the relief he seeks. (Dkt.15.) This Court directed Petitioner to state all claims and requests for relief. (Dkt. 10.) Petitioner fails to do so in his first amended petition. (Dkt. 15.) His claims are unintelligible. “Federal courts are authorized to dismiss summarily any habeas petition that appears legally insufficient on its face.” McFarland v. Scott, 512 U.S. 849, 856 (1994). Unintelligible pleadings, like Petitioner’s, are dismissible because their incomprehensibility prejudices the opposing party. See Schmidt v. Herrmann, 614 F.2d 1221, 1224 (9th Cir. 1980); Guest v. Miller, 2014 WL 5528396, at *3 (C.D. Cal. 2014), report and recommendation adopted, 2014 WL 5581394 (C.D. Cal. 2014) (“Petitioner’s contention…is far too conclusory, unsupported, and unintelligible to plausibly lead to habeas relief). . . .
ECF No. 30, pgs. 2-3. These arguments are persuasive. Petitioner’s amended petition fails to comply with Rule 2(c). As Respondent notes, Petitioner’s claims are unintelligible. Current case law clearly defines the scope of pleading requirements for habeas petitions as needing particularized facts so the court can draw reasonable inferences in favor of a pro se petitioners. See Jones, 66 F.3d at 204. Even construing Petitioner’s amended petition liberally, Petitioner makes no discernible argument that would justify his habeas petition. See ECF No.15. Petitioner’s claims are conclusory and would require this Court to make unreasonable inferences to try and piece together Petitioner’s claims. See id. As mentioned, Rule 2(c) requires a petitioner to assert clear facts and grounds for relief. As discussed above, Petitioner’s factual assertions are unclear. See □□□ No.15. As to Petitioners request for relief, it appears he is asking for a transfer to Crestwood Hospital, but his request is not entirely apparent. See ECF No. 15, pg. 5. Regardless of whether Petitioner has satisfied the other formal requirements for habeas corpus petitions, this Court cannot draw reasonable inferences based on current pleading. Based on the foregoing, the undersigned recommends that Respondent’s motion to dismiss, ECF No. 30, be granted and that the amended petition be dismissed with leave to amend. These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(). Within 14 days after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written objections with the Court. Responses to objections shall be filed within 14 days after service of objections. Failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal. See Martinez v. Yist, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). Dated: September 16, 2021 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE