Lona Williams v. C.I.W. Prison

• Court: District Court, C.D. California
• Decided: February 23, 2022
• Docket: 2:22-cv-01034
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

Case 2:22-cv-01034-JAK-JDE Document 4 Filed 02/23/22 Page 1 of 6 Page ID #:20

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 WESTERN DIVISION 11 LONA WILLIAMS, ) No. 2:22-cv-01034-JAK-JDE ) 12 Petitioner, ) ) ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE 13 v. ) WHY THE PETITION ) 14 C.I.W. PRISON, ) SHOULD NOT BE ) DISMISSED ) 15 Respondent. ) ) 16

17 18 I. 19 INTRODUCTION 20 On February 14, 2022, Petitioner Lona Williams (“Petitioner”), a 21 California state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas 22 Corpus by a Person in State Custody pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, challenging 23 a 2019 conviction in Los Angeles County Superior Court. Dkt. 1 (“Petition” or 24 “Pet.”). The Court has reviewed the Petition consistent with its authority 25 under Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States 26 District Courts (“Habeas Rules”) and finds that the Petition suffers from 27 several defects. The Court therefore orders Petitioner to show cause why this 28 action should not be dismissed. Case 2:22-cv-01034-JAK-JDE Document 4 Filed 02/23/22 Page 2 of 6 Page ID #:21

1 II. 2 PETITIONER’S CLAIMS 3 1. “Trial judge did not give the jury a self defense instruction[.] 4 Victim in [Petitioner’s] case testified at [her] preliminary hearing that she 5 attacked [Petitioner] first gouging [her] eyes out[.]” Pet. at 5 (CM/ECF 6 pagination). 7 2. “Victim changed her testimony at trial from the one she testified to 8 at [Petitioner’s] preliminary trial. [B]oth testimonies are on court record[.]” 9 Pet. at 5. 10 III. 11 DISCUSSION 12 District courts are required to “promptly examine” all federal habeas 13 petitions brought under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 and, “[i]f it plainly appears from the 14 petition and any attached exhibits that the petitioner is not entitled to relief,” 15 the “judge must dismiss the petition[.]” Habeas Rule 4; Mayle v. Felix, 545 16 U.S. 644, 656 (2005). Here, the Petition suffers from the following defects: (1) 17 Petitioner has failed to coherently allege federal grounds for relief; (2) Ground 18 Two appears to be unexhausted; and (3) Petitioner has failed to name the 19 appropriate respondent. 20 A. Petitioner has Failed to Coherently Allege Federal Grounds for Relief 21 First, the Petition is subject to dismissal because Petitioner has not 22 asserted cognizable federal claims. “In conducting habeas review, a federal 23 court is limited to deciding whether a conviction violated the Constitution, 24 laws, or treaties of the United States.” Estelle v. McGuire, 502 U.S. 62, 68 25 (1991); Smith v. Phillips, 455 U.S. 209, 221 (1982) (“A federally issued writ of 26 habeas corpus, of course, reaches only convictions obtained in violation of 27 some provision of the United States Constitution.”). Federal habeas relief is 28 not available for errors of state law. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a); McGuire, 502 2 Case 2:22-cv-01034-JAK-JDE Document 4 Filed 02/23/22 Page 3 of 6 Page ID #:22

1 U.S. at 67-68. Here, Petitioner cites no federal authority in support of her 2 grounds for relief and identifies no federal constitutional violations. 3 Accordingly, Petitioner’s claims are not cognizable on federal habeas review. 4 Second, Petitioner has not sufficiently set forth the facts supporting her 5 grounds for relief. The Habeas Rules require a statement of all grounds for 6 relief and the facts supporting each ground, and the petition should state facts 7 that point to a real possibility of constitutional error and show the relationship 8 of the facts to the claim. See Habeas Rule 2(c); Habeas Rule 4, Advisory 9 Committee Notes, 1976 Adoption; Felix, 545 U.S. at 655; O’Bremski v. 10 Maass, 915 F.2d 418, 420 (9th Cir. 1990) (as amended). Allegations in a 11 petition that are vague, conclusory, palpably incredible, or unsupported by a 12 statement of specific facts, are insufficient to warrant relief, and are subject to 13 summary dismissal. See Jones v. Gomez, 66 F.3d 199, 204-05 (9th Cir. 1995); 14 James v. Borg, 24 F.3d 20, 26 (9th Cir. 1994); Hendricks v. Vasquez, 908 F.2d 15 490, 491 (9th Cir. 1990). Here, Petitioner has not provided sufficient facts in 16 support of her claims. For instance, as to Ground Two, the supporting facts 17 section states, in its entirety, “both testimonies are on court record.” Pet. at 5. 18 Petitioner has failed to comply with the requirements of the Habeas Rules. 19 Third, it appears that Petitioner may be seeking to pursue grounds for 20 relief in addition to those identified on the form habeas petition. Specifically, 21 Petitioner attached a handwritten letter addressed to the “Court” to her 22 Petition, in which she contends that she received an “excessive sentence”; 23 should not been sentenced as a second striker; the trial judge “treated” her 24 unfairly; the sentence was in excess of what she was advised by her trial 25 counsel; and the victim, Regina Patterson, should have been arrested because 26 there were warrants for her arrest. See Pet. at 14-16. As none of these claims 27 were asserted in the form habeas petition or rely on federal law, it is unclear 28 whether Petitioner is seeking to pursue these additional grounds for relief. 3 Case 2:22-cv-01034-JAK-JDE Document 4 Filed 02/23/22 Page 4 of 6 Page ID #:23

1 Accordingly, the Petition falls short of the minimal clarity required to 2 proceed. 3 B. The Petition is Mixed 4 Under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b), federal habeas relief may not be granted 5 unless the petitioner has exhausted the remedies available in state courts or an 6 exception to the exhaustion requirement applies. Exhaustion requires that the 7 petitioner’s claims be fairly presented to the state courts and be disposed of on 8 the merits by the highest court of the state. James, 24 F.3d at 24; Carothers v. 9 Rhay, 594 F.2d 225, 228 (9th Cir. 1979); see also Libberton v. Ryan, 583 F.3d 10 1147, 1164 (9th Cir. 2009). A claim has not been fairly presented to a state 11 court unless the petitioner has described both the operative facts and the 12 federal legal theory on which the claim is based. See Duncan v. Henry, 513 13 U.S. 364, 365-66 (1995) (per curiam); Picard v. Connor, 404 U.S. 270, 275-78 14 (1971); Greenway v. Schriro, 653 F.3d 790, 801 (9th Cir. 2011). As a matter of 15 comity, a federal court will not entertain a habeas corpus petition unless the 16 petitioner has exhausted the available state judicial remedies on every ground 17 presented in the petition. See Rose v. Lundy, 455 U.S. 509, 518-22 (1982). 18 Petitioner has the burden of demonstrating that she has exhausted her 19 available state remedies. See, e.g., Williams v. Craven, 460 F.2d 1253, 1254 20 (9th Cir. 1972) (per curiam). 21 Here, Petitioner indicates that Ground Two was not raised in a petition 22 for review or habeas petition to the California Supreme Court. See Pet. at 5-6. 23 As such, Ground Two is unexhausted, rendering the Petition “mixed” and 24 subject to dismissal. 25 C. Petitioner has Named the Wrong Respondent 26 Finally, the Petition fails to name an appropriate respondent. The proper 27 respondent for a habeas petition typically is the warden of the facility in which 28 the petitioner is incarcerated. See Stanley v. Cal. Supreme Court, 21 F.3d 359, 4 Case 2:22-cv-01034-JAK-JDE Document 4 Filed 02/23/22 Page 5 of 6 Page ID #:24

1 360 (9th Cir. 1994) (as amended); see also Habeas Rule 2(a) (“If the petitioner 2 is currently in custody under a state-court judgment, the petition must name as 3 respondent the state officer who has custody.”). The Ninth Circuit has held the 4 failure to name the correct respondent destroys personal jurisdiction. See Ortiz- 5 Sandoval v. Gomez, 81 F.3d 891, 894 (9th Cir. 1996) (as amended); Stanley, 6 21 F.3d at 360. Here, Petitioner purports to name the California Institution for 7 Women, where she currently is incarcerated, not the warden of this facility, as 8 required. 9 IV. 10 CONCLUSION 11 For the foregoing reasons, the Petition is subject to dismissal. Petitioner 12 is ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE why this action should not be dismissed 13 without prejudice by filing a written response by no later than thirty (30) days 14 from the date of this Order which sets forth any valid legal and/or factual 15 reasons why the Petition should not be dismissed. If Petitioner contends that 16 she has fairly presented her claims to the state courts and the California 17 Supreme Court has disposed of those claims on the merits, Petitioner should 18 provide all case numbers and dates in which her claims were considered and 19 disposed of on the merits by the California state courts. 20 Alternatively, Petitioner may file an amended petition within thirty (30) 21 days of the date of this Order to attempt to cure the above-referenced defects. 22 The Clerk is directed to send Petitioner a blank copy of the Central District 23 habeas petition form for this purpose. The amended petition should reflect the 24 same case number; be clearly labeled “First Amended Petition”; and be filled 25 out completely, including clearly and concisely setting forth every ground on 26 which Petitioner claims she is being held unlawfully and the facts supporting 27 those grounds. 28 5 Case 2:22-cv-01034-JAK-JDE Document 4 Filed 02/23/22 Page6of6 Page |ID#:25

1 Petitioner is cautioned that a failure to respond timely in compliance 2 || with this Order may result in this action being dismissed for the foregoing 3 ||reasons, for failure to prosecute, and for failure to comply with a Court order. 4 || See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). 6 || Dated: February 23, 2022

8 ND. EARLY 9 nited States Magistrate Judge 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28