(HC)Caridad v. Black

• Court: District Court, E.D. California
• Decided: May 6, 2021
• Docket: 2:21-cv-00704
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 BENJAMIN TABAYOYONG CARIDAD, Case No. 2:21-cv-00704-JDP (HC) 12 Petitioner, ORDER GRANTING PETITIONER’S APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN FORMA 13 v. PAUPERIS 14 CINDY BLACK, ECF No. 3 15 Respondent. ORDER FINDING THAT THE PETITION DOES NOT STATE A COGNIZABLE 16 FEDERAL CLAIM AND GIVING LEAVE TO AMEND WITHIN SIXTY DAYS 17 ECF No. 1 18 19 Petitioner Benjamin Tabayoyong Caridad, an individual involuntarily confined in a state 20 hospital, seeks a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. ECF No. 1. The petition is 21 before me for preliminary review under Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. 22 Under Rule 4, the judge assigned to the habeas proceeding must examine the habeas petition and 23 order a response to the petition unless it “plainly appears” that the petitioner is not entitled to 24 relief. See Valdez v. Montgomery, 918 F.3d 687, 693 (9th Cir. 2019); Boyd v. Thompson, 147 25 F.3d 1124, 1127 (9th Cir. 1998). Here, it plainly appears that petitioner is not entitled to relief. I 26 will give petitioner an opportunity to amend before recommending that the petition be dismissed. 27 I will also grant his application to proceed in forma pauperis. ECF No. 3. 28 1 Petitioner raises three claims that are insufficiently developed to proceed. First, he argues 2 | that his trial counsel was constitutionally ineffective and had a conflict of interest. ECF No. 1 at 3 | 5. He does not explain how counsel was ineffective or what conflict of interest existed. Second, 4 | petitioner argues that his involuntary commitment “did not support [his] mental disorder’s serious 5 | difficulty controlling behavior.” Jd. He does not elaborate, and I do not understand the substance 6 | of this claim. Finally, petitioner claims that the trial court violated his right to a speedy trial by 7 | admitting hearsay evidence. Jd. Again, he does not elaborate. Such vague claims cannot support 8 | habeas relief. If this action is to proceed, petitioner will need to file an amended petitioner that 9 | explains and contextualizes his claims. Greenway v. Schriro, 653 F.3d 790, 804 (9th Cir. 2011) 10 | (holding that “cursory and vague claim[s] cannot support habeas relief”). 11 I will allow petitioner to amend his petition before I recommend that it be dismissed. 12 It is ORDERED that: 13 1. Petitioner’s application to proceed in forma pauperis, ECF No. 3, is granted. 14 2. Petitioner may file an amended petition within sixty days of this order’s entry. If 15 | he does not, I will recommend that the current petition be dismissed for the reasons stated in this 16 | order. 17 3. The Clerk of Court is directed to send petitioner a federal habeas form. 18 19 IT IS SO ORDERED. 20 ( q oy — Dated: _ May 5, 2021 21 JEREMY D. PETERSON UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

23 24 25 26 27 28