Julian Imperial Mendoza v. Joseph Tuggle

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JULIAN IMPERIAL MENDOZA, No. 2:25-cv-01043-DC-EFB (HC) 12 Petitioner, 13 v. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 14 JOSEPH TUGGLE, 15 Respondent. 16 17 18 Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se. He has filed a petition for writ of habeas 19 corpus. 28 U.S.C. § 2254. He has paid the filing fee. 20 Rule 2 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases provides that the petition “shall specify 21 all the grounds for relief which are available to the petitioner and of which he has or by the 22 exercise of reasonable diligence should have knowledge and shall set forth in summary form the 23 facts supporting each of the grounds thus specified.” Rule 2(c), Rules Governing Section 2254 24 Cases. Petitioner must also clearly state the relief sought in the petition. Id. Additionally, the 25 Advisory Committee Notes to Rule 4 explains that “notice pleading is not sufficient, for the 26 petition is expected to state facts that point to a real possibility of constitutional error.” Advisory 27 Committee Notes to Rule 4; see Blackledge v. Allison, 431 U.S. 63, 75, n.7 (1977). 28 1 Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Habeas Corpus Cases Under Section 2254 provides for 2 summary dismissal of a habeas petition “[i]f it plainly appears from the face of the petition and 3 any exhibits annexed to it that the petitioner is not entitled to relief in the district court.” In the 4 instant case, it is plain from the petition that petitioner and appended exhibits that is not entitled 5 to federal habeas relief. 6 Federal courts may not entertain habeas petitions brought under § 2254 if success on the 7 petition would not necessarily accelerate the petitioner’s release from custody. Nettles v. 8 Grounds, 830 F.3d 992, 934-35 (9th Cir. 2016) (en banc). 9 Petitioner alleges that CDCR staff have placed false information in his prison file 10 identifying him as a sex offender. ECF No. 1. If the court were to determine that petitioner’s 11 federal rights have been violated by the inclusion of this information in his file and were to order 12 the expungement of such documents from the file, petitioner’s release would not necessarily be 13 accelerated. Because success would not necessarily accelerate petitioner’s release, he must bring 14 his claim, if at all, in a civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Id. at 934. Therefore, the 15 petition is subject to summary dismissal. 16 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that the petition be dismissed without 17 prejudice and without leave to amend. 18 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 19 assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen days 20 after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written 21 objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned 22 “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Failure to file objections 23 within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Turner v. 24 Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998); Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 25 Dated: February 12, 2026 26

27 28