Richardson v. Frazier

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 KEVIN RICHARDSON, Case No.: 22-CV-1447 TWR (AHG)

12 Petitioner, ORDER DISMISSING SECOND 13 v. AMENDED PETITION WITHOUT PREJUDICE AND WITHOUT 14 FRAZIER, Warden, LEAVE TO AMEND 15 Respondent. (ECF No. 13) 16

17 On September 22, 2022, Petitioner Kevin Richardson, a state prisoner proceeding 18 pro se, filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. (See 19 generally ECF No. 1.) On October 25, 2022, the Court screened the Petition and 20 dismissed it for failure to state a cognizable claim. (See generally ECF No. 4.) Petitioner 21 was given leave to file a First Amended Petition, and he did so on November 29, 2022. 22 (See generally ECF Nos. 5, 6.) The Court dismissed the First Amended Petition on 23 January 9, 2023, because Petitioner again failed to state a cognizable claim. (See 24 generally ECF No. 7.) The Court gave Petitioner one final opportunity to file an amended 25 petition. (See id.) On March 6, 2023, Petitioner filed a Second Amended Petition (“SAP,” 26 ECF No. 13). 27 / / / 1 FAILURE TO ALLEGE A COGNIZABLE CLAIM ON FEDERAL HABEAS 2 The Second Amended Petition must be dismissed because, as with his original 3 Petition and First Amended Petition, Petitioner has failed to state cognizable claim. 4 Section 2254(a) of Title 28 of the United States Code sets forth the following scope of 5 review for federal habeas corpus claims: 6 The Supreme Court, a Justice thereof, a circuit judge, or a district court shall entertain an application for a writ of habeas corpus in behalf of a person 7 in custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court only on the ground that 8 he is in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States. 9

10 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a); see also Hernandez v. Ylst, 930 F.2d 714, 719 (9th Cir. 1991). Thus, 11 to present a cognizable federal habeas corpus claim under § 2254, a state prisoner must 12 allege both that he is in custody pursuant to a “judgment of a State court” and that he is 13 in custody in “violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.” See 14 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a). 15 Moreover, a petition for writ of habeas corpus must specify the grounds for relief 16 as well as the facts supporting each ground. See Rule 2(c) of the Rules Governing Section 17 2254 Cases; 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Petitioner must make specific factual allegations that, if 18 true, would entitle him to habeas corpus relief. See United States v. Popoola, 881 F.2d 19 811, 812 (9th Cir. 1989). “A prime purpose of Rule 2(c)’s demand that habeas petitioners 20 plead with particularity is to assist the district court in determining whether the State 21 should be ordered to ‘show cause why the writ should not be granted.’” Mayle v. Felix, 22 545 U.S. 644, 656 (2005) (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 2243). 23 Here, while Petitioner broadly references the United States Constitution in his 24 grounds for relief, he fails to identify which constitutional provision provides the basis 25 for his individual claims. For instance, as to his first ground for relief, Petitioner states, 26 “United States Constitution Amendments 1–10, Article I, sec. 8, cl. 16, Article III and 27 Article VI Sovereign Immunity (Worldwide) . . . .” (See SAP at 6.) Petitioner repeats 1 || Amended Petition does Petitioner identify a specific constitutional basis for challenging 2 || the “fact or duration” of his confinement. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a); Preiser v. Rodriguez, U.S. 475, 500 (1973). 4 Further, the Second Amended Petition does not provide an adequate narrative 5 || description of Petitioner’s claims. To the extent it contains “factual allegations,” they are 6 || difficult to comprehend and largely consist of seemingly unrelated phrases. (See 7 || generally SAP at 6-9.) For instance, in the supporting facts as to ground one, Petitioner 8 in part: “Highest authorities Worldwide issued. Instruments and documents are 9 || available. U.S. Constitutional powers—as applicable (public entity) #1 issues Worldwide 0 ||Daly Manifest—currently detained executive order—strict[.] Congressional alts and 1 ||statutes....” (Ud. at 6.) The remaining grounds for relief and supporting facts are 2 || similarly unclear and, at times, indecipherable. (See id. at 7-9.) 3 Petitioner’s vague references to the United States Constitution and disjointed 4 ||factual allegations are insufficient to allege he is “in custody in violation of the 5 || Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.” See 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Further, the 6 of intelligible grounds for relief in the Second Amended Petition prevents 7 ||Respondent from being able to assert appropriate objections and defenses, as required 8 |}under Rule 2(c) of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. See Mayle, 545 U.S. at 9 ||655—56. Accordingly, the Court must dismiss the Second Amended Petition. 0 CONCLUSION 1 Based on the foregoing, the Court DISMISSES this Second Amended Petition 2 || WITHOUT PREJUDICE and WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND because Petitioner 3 || has again failed to state a cognizable federal claim. 4 IT IS SO ORDERED. 5 March 20, 2023 [5 14 bre 7 Honorable Todd W. Robinson United States District Judge 8