Scott Kahala King v. United States

CourtDistrict Court, C.D. California
DecidedNovember 5, 2019
Docket5:19-cv-01924
StatusUnknown

This text of Scott Kahala King v. United States (Scott Kahala King v. United States) 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
Scott Kahala King v. United States, (C.D. Cal. 2019).

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 | SCOTT KAHALA KING, Case No. 5:19-cv-01924-CAS-JC Potton, | MMAR vr V. LEAVE TO AMEND UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 16 Respondent. 17 18 On October 8, 2019, petitioner Scott Kahala King, who appears to be 19 || detained at the West Valley Detention Center in connection with state parole 20 || violation proceedings and is proceeding pro se, filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas 21 } Corpus (“Petition”) with multiple miscellaneous attachments. As the Petition is 22 | deficient in at least the following respects, it is dismissed with leave to amend.' 23 First, the Petition has not been submitted on either the national form 24 || appended to the current Habeas Rules or the form currently approved by the Central

26 'Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts 77 || (Habeas Rules”) requires a judge promptly to examine a federal habeas petition, and to dismiss it if “it plainly appears from the petition and any attached exhibits that the petitioner is not 28 |] entitled to relief in the district court... .”

1 | District of California for habeas petitions. See Local Rule 83-16; Rule 2(d) of the 2 || Habeas Rules. It is important to utilize the approved form, because, among other 3 || reasons, the approved form calls for specific information regarding whether 4 || individual claims have been presented to and resolved by the California Supreme, 5 || i.e., whether they have been exhausted, as discussed further below. 6 Second, the Petition improperly names the United States of America as a 7 || Respondent. Cf. Morehead v. State of California, 339 F.2d 170, 171 (9th Cir. 1964) 8 || (State of California incorrectly named as respondent). An appropriate respondent 9 || is petitioner's immediate custodian (i.e., the warden at the facility where he is 10 || currently housed). See Rumsfeld v. Padilla, 542 U.S. 426, 439 (2004); see also 28 11 } U.S.C. § 2242; Rule 2(a) of the Habeas Rules and the Advisory Committee Notes 12 || thereto. The failure to name the correct respondent destroys personal jurisdiction. 13 | See Ortiz-Sandoval v. Gomez, 81 F.3d 891, 894 (9th Cir. 1996). 14 Third, the Petition does not clearly specify its ground(s) for relief, and the 15 || facts supporting the ground(s) are largely incomprehensible. See Rule 2(c) of the 16 || Habeas Rules. As best as the Court can determine, petitioner appears to challenge 17 || a 2006 conviction because it was allegedly based on “insignificant evidence of 18 || facts” (Ground One) and suggests that he is entitled to “Keheya support” because he 19 || is “Keheya pro se” (Ground Two). Given the attachments to the Petition which 20 || appear to pertain to pending parole violation proceedings, it may be that petitioner 21 || intends to challenge his arrest and detention since September 25, 2019 for an 22 || alleged parole violation. See Attachment to Petition (Probable Cause 23 || Determination form for the arrest). Rule 2(c) of the Habeas Rules requires that a 24 | petition: (1) specify all grounds of relief available to the petitioner; (2) state the 25 || facts supporting each ground; and (3) state the relief requested. The petition must 26 || state facts that point to a real possibility of constitutional error. See Blackledge v. 27 || Allison, 431 U.S. 63, 75 n. 7 (1977) (summary disposition of habeas petition 28 || appropriate where allegations are vague or conclusory; “the petition 1s expected to

1 || state facts that point to a real possibility of constitutional error’) (citation and 2 || quotation omitted). The facts currently alleged in the Petition are largely 3 || incomprehensible and do not point to a real possibility of constitutional error. 4 Fourth, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(1), habeas relief may not be granted 5 || unless a petitioner has exhausted the remedies available in the state courts.” 6 || Exhaustion requires that the petitioner’s contentions were fairly presented to the 7 || state courts, Ybarra v. McDaniel, 656 F.3d 984, 991 (9th Cir. 2011), cert. denied, 8 | 568 U.S. 959 (2012), and disposed of on the merits by the highest court of the state, 9 || Greene v. Lambert, 288 F.3d 1081, 1086 (9th Cir. 2002). As a matter of comity, a 10 || federal court will not entertain a habeas petition unless the petitioner has exhausted 11 || the available state judicial remedies on every ground presented in it. See Rose v. 12 | Lundy, 455 U.S. 509, 518 (1982). Petitioner has the burden of demonstrating he 13 || has exhausted available state remedies. See, e.g., Williams v. Craven, 460 F.2d 14 } 1253, 1254 (9th Cir. 1972) (per curiam); Rollins v. Superior Court, 706 F. Supp. 2d 15 } 1008, 1011 (C.D. Cal. 2010). In this case, the Petition does not reflect that 16 || petitioner’s claim(s) have been presented to and resolved by the California Supreme 17 | Court, and the Court cannot discern from the Petition whether any ground petitioner 18 | may intend to assert has been presented to and resolved by the California Supreme 19 || Court as required. 20 /// 21 22 | /// 23 /// 24 | /// 25 26 °A habeas petition “shall not be granted unless it appears that — [§] (A) the applicant has 27 || exhausted the remedies available in the courts of the State; or [§] (B)(i) there is an absence of available state corrective process; or [4] (11) circumstances exist that render such process 28 | ineffective to protect the rights of the applicant.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(1).

1 In light of the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 2 1. The Petition is dismissed with leave to amend.? 3 2. If petitioner wishes to pursue this action, he shall file a First Amended 4 || Petition correcting the above-referenced errors within fourteen (14) days of the date 5 || of this Order. The First Amended Petition shall name a proper respondent, reflect 6 || the same case number, be clearly labeled “First Amended Petition,” be filled out 7 || completely, and be complete in itself. In other words, petitioner may not 8 || incorporate by reference the original Petition or its attachments. He must clearly 9 || identify the state court case number of the judgment which is being challenged. He 10 || must also clearly state each ground for relief with supporting facts and specify 11 || whether it was raised in state court, and if so, the name of the court in which the 12 || claim was raised, the case number, the date filed, the date decided, and the result. 13 3. In the event petitioner elects not to proceed with this action, he shall 14 || sign and return the attached Notice of Dismissal by the foregoing deadline which 15 || will result in the voluntary dismissal of this action without prejudice.’ 16 4.

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

Related

Link v. Wabash Railroad
370 U.S. 626 (Supreme Court, 1962)
Blackledge v. Allison
431 U.S. 63 (Supreme Court, 1977)
Rose v. Lundy
455 U.S. 509 (Supreme Court, 1982)
Duncan v. Walker
533 U.S. 167 (Supreme Court, 2001)
Rumsfeld v. Padilla
542 U.S. 426 (Supreme Court, 2004)
Homer K. Morehead v. State of California
339 F.2d 170 (Ninth Circuit, 1964)
Ybarra v. McDaniel
656 F.3d 984 (Ninth Circuit, 2011)
William B. Greene v. John Lambert
288 F.3d 1081 (Ninth Circuit, 2002)
Ortiz-Sandoval v. Gomez
81 F.3d 891 (Ninth Circuit, 1996)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Scott Kahala King v. United States, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/scott-kahala-king-v-united-states-cacd-2019.