United States District Court, E.D. California
ERICK D. HENSON, Petitioner,
REBECCA BARRON; TERRY McNALLY; LISA GREEN; JOHN SOMERS; ANGIE RALLS; CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND REHABILITATION; and COASTLINE COMMUNITY COLLEGE, Respondents.
ORDER DISMISSING PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS
WITH LEAVE TO AMEND (Docs. 1, 10, and 13)
K. OBERTO, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Erick D. Henson is a state prisoner proceeding pro
se with a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 2254. On December 2, 2016, Petitioner filed a
petition for writ of habeas corpus under California Penal
Code § 1473, et seq., in the Sacramento
Division of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District
of California. Because the petition's proper venue is the
Fresno Division of the Eastern District, the petition was
transferred to the Fresno Division on January 12, 2017.
petition for writ of habeas corpus filed under the California
Penal Code is a state action. In fact, the petition filed in
the federal district court appears to be a copy of the habeas
petition that Petitioner filed in the Kern County Superior
Court on May 3, 2016, in that it bears both the Superior
Court's docket number (see Doc. 1 at 1) and the
certification of filing of the Kern County Clerk of Court
(see Doc. 1 at 15). Because Petitioner has not filed
an appropriate federal petition, the Court will direct the
Clerk of Court to forward a federal form to Petitioner along
with this screening order. The screening order also provides
information that will assist Petitioner in amending his
petition to satisfy federal requirements. If Petitioner
requires assistance in preparing an amended petition, he is
directed to contact a legal assistant in the law library of
the facility in which he is confined.
of the Rules Governing § 2254 Cases requires the Court
to conduct a preliminary review of each petition for writ of
habeas corpus. The Court must dismiss a petition "[i]f
it plainly appears from the petition . . . that the
petitioner is not entitled to relief." Rule 4 of the
Rules Governing 2254 Cases; see also Hendricks v.
Vasquez, 908 F.2d 490, 491 (9th Cir. 1990). A
petition for habeas corpus should not be dismissed without
leave to amend unless it appears that no tenable claim for
relief can be pleaded were such leave to be granted.
Jarvis v. Nelson, 440 F.2d 13, 14 (9th
Standard of Review for Federal Habeas
person in custody as a result of the judgment of a state
court may secure relief through a federal petition for habeas
corpus if the custody violates the Constitution or laws or
treaties of the United States. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a);
Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362, 375 (2000). On
April 24, 1996, Congress enacted the Antiterrorism and
Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 ("AEDPA"),
which applies to all petitions for writ of habeas corpus
filed thereafter. Lindh v. Murphy, 521 U.S. 320,
322-23 (1997). Under the statutory terms, the petition in
this case is governed by AEDPA's provisions because
Petitioner filed it after April 24, 1996.
corpus is neither a substitute for a direct appeal nor a
device for federal review of the merits of a guilty verdict
rendered in state court. Jackson v. Virginia, 443
U.S. 307, 332 n. 5 (1979) (Stevens, J., concurring). Habeas
corpus relief is intended to address only "extreme
malfunctions" in state criminal justice proceedings.
Id. Under AEDPA, a petitioner can prevail only if he
can show that the state court's adjudication of his
(1) resulted in a decision that was contrary to, or involved
an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal
law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States;
(2) resulted in a decision that was based on an unreasonable
determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented
in the State court proceeding.
28 U.S.C. § 2254(d); Lockyer v. Andrade, 538
U.S. 63, 70-71 (2003); Williams, 529 U.S. at 413.
its terms, § 2254(d) bars relitigation of any claim
'adjudicated on the merits' in state court, subject
only to the exceptions set forth in §§ 2254(d)(1)
and (d)(2)." Harrington v. Richter, 562 U.S.
86, 98 (2011).
threshold matter, a federal court must first determine what
constitutes "clearly established Federal law, as
determined by the Supreme Court of the United States."
Lockyer, 538 U.S. at 71. To do so, the Court must
look to the holdings, as opposed to the dicta, of the Supreme
Court's decisions at the time of the relevant state-court
decision. Id. The court must then consider whether
the state court's decision was "contrary to, or
involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established
Federal law." Id. at 72. The state court need
not have cited clearly established Supreme Court precedent;
it is sufficient that neither the reasoning nor the result of
the state court contradicts it. Early v. Packer, 537
U.S. 3, 8 (2002). The federal court must apply the
presumption that state courts know and follow the law.
Woodford v. Visciotti, 537 U.S. 19, 24 (2002). The
petitioner has ...