Home/C.D. California/Lee v. Kritzman

Lee v. Kritzman

390 F. Supp. 885, 1975 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13613
CourtDistrict Court, C.D. California
DecidedFebruary 26, 1975
DocketNo. CV 75-67-F
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 390 F. Supp. 885 (Lee v. Kritzman) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, C.D. California primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Lee v. Kritzman, 390 F. Supp. 885, 1975 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13613 (C.D. Cal. 1975).

Opinion

FERGUSON, District Judge.

On January 8, 1975, plaintiff filed suit against the Clerk of this court, contending that he had improperly refused to accept plaintiff’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus. Plaintiff seeks an injunction against the enforcement of the local court rule by dint of which the Clerk rejected his petition. The relevant facts are as follows.

1. Local Rule 19 (a) 1 of this court requires that all habeas corpus petitions shall be on forms supplied by the court. General Order 144 adopts the specific form approved by the court. Copies of the Rule, the relevant amendment, the Order, and the form are appended hereto as Appendices A, B, C, and D, respectively.

2. On December 6, 1974, plaintiff submitted to the Clerk a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, utilizing the prescribed form. He ignored, however, the plainly stated requirement that no more than one separate page be attached in responding to the ninth question, which asks for the grounds of the claim for release. Instead, he attached some 20 pages of material. Much of it violated another requirement on the form — that only facts be related, with no recitation of cases.

3. On December 11, 1974, defendant wrote and mailed a letter to plaintiff, telling him of the errors in the form of his petition, and suggesting that he correct the petition and resubmit it.

4. Plaintiff never submitted a revised petition to the Clerk. He instead instituted this lawsuit, seeking a declaration that the local rules are unconstitutional and a mandate that the Clerk accept his petition in the form originally filed.1

At the time plaintiff filed his action, Local Rule 19 (a) 1 had not yet been amended, so that the Clerk’s form for a habeas corpus petition was required only of those acting in propria persona. Attorneys acting for petitioners had freedom to choose their own format. Plaintiff attacked the implicit distinction between petitioners represented by counsel and those not so represented as being violative of the equal protection of the laws guaranteed to him by the Constitution. This court need not reach the merits of that claim, since Rule 19 (a) 1 as amended now mandates the use of the form by all petitioners, and has thereby made the claim moot.

[887]*887It is clearly settled law in this circuit that forms such as the one at issue here may be required of petitioners for writs of habeas corpus. Fernandez v. Meier, 432 F.2d 426, 428 (9th Cir. 1970); Hooker v. United States District Court, Central District of California, 380 F.2d 5, 6 (9th Cir. 1967); see Peinado v. Adult Auth. of Dept. of Corrections, 405 F.2d 1185 (9th Cir. 1969); Smart v. Heinze, 347 F.2d 114 (9th Cir. 1965). The holdings in these cases protect prisoners’ rights, while recognizing the practicalities of doing judicial business.

“The volume of habeas corpus petitions has grown to a point where time no longer permits a court-initiated search for merit in every layman’s narrative of grievance prepared in the traditional prison style. When prisoners address the court today they must expect to be required to conform to court rules adopted to assure that a judge’s time is efficiently used. A rule implemented in such fashion as that here under attack now supplies an assurance, otherwise lacking, that relevant facts will be so exposed as to permit the meritorious case to have its remedy.” Hooker, supra, 380 F.2d at 6.

This approach is supported by commentators. In discussing the requirements for habeas corpus applications as set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 2242, one authority has said:

“[T]he petition must state why custody is unlawful. This does not mean that a legal treatise should be written explaining in intricate detail of what the illegality consists. The petitioner should not file, as did one prisoner, a 2000-page petition in two volumes. Rarely should the entire petition be over four or five pages. No legal authority should be cited in the petition. A very simple statement of the precise allegation is all that is necessary. .” R. Sokol, Federal Habeas Corpus 93 (2d ed. 1969).

The form here challenged gives ample space for a petitioner adequately to state his claim, while simultaneously guiding him in presenting those claims in a format which is helpful to the judge who reviews his petition. The action of the Central District of California in adopting the form, and the step taken by the Clerk to enforce its proper utilization in this case, were reasonable and justifiable courses of conduct, supported by law and common sense. It is therefore

Ordered that the complaint in this case be dismissed; and further

Ordered that the Clerk of the court forthwith serve copies of this order by mail upon plaintiff and the attorneys for the defendant.

APPENDIX A

RULE 19. PROCEDURE FOR HABEAS CORPUS AND MOTIONS UNDER SECTION 2255.

(a) Statutory Provisions:

Reference is made to Sections 2241 to 2254, inclusive, of Title 28, U.S.Code, which provide for application or petition for writ of habeas corpus and disposition thereof, and to Section 2255 of Title 28, U.S.Code, which provides for motion for relief under that Section and disposition thereof.

The provisions of the within Rule 19 supplement the provisions of Title 28, U.S.Code, Sections 2241-2255.

1. Petition for writ of habeas corpus and motions filed pursuant to 28 U. S.C. § 2255 by persons in custody, in propria persona, shall be in writing, signed and verified. Such petitions and motions shall be on form supplied by the court. Where petitions or applications for habeas corpus or motions under Section 2255 are prepared and filed for a party by an attorney, the attorney will not be required to use the forms provided for in this paragraph if the attorney preparing the petition, application or motion certifies in writing thereon that the said document contains all the information required by the within Rule 19.

[888]*888* * tt * * *

APPENDIX B

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

In the Matter of The Amendment of Local Rule 19, Procedure for Habeas Corpus and Motions Under Section 2255

GENERAL ORDER NO. 145

IT IS ORDERED that Local Rule 19(a) 1 is amended to read as follows: “Petitions for writs of habeas corpus and motions filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 shall be in writing, signed and verified. Such petitions and motions must be on forms approved and supplied by the court.’.’

Dated February 20, 1975.

/s/ Albert Lee Stephens, Jr. Chief /s/ Manuel L. Real

/s/ Jesse W. Curtis /s/ Harry Pregerson

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

(PC) Dauwalder v. Moeller
E.D. California, 2025
Peace v. Baker
697 F. Supp. 1145 (D. Nevada, 1988)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
390 F. Supp. 885, 1975 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13613, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lee-v-kritzman-cacd-1975.