Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Fadden v. Vasquez

United States District Court, E.D. California

March 23, 2017

BARRETT JUSTON FADDEN, Petitioner,
v.
PAT L. VASQUEZ, Warden, Respondents.

          ORDER DISMISSING PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS WITH LEAVE TO AMEND (DOC. 1)

          SHEILA K. OBERTO UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

         Screening Memorandum

         Petitioner Barrett Juston Fadden is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The Court has reviewed the habeas petition (Doc. 1) and determined that the petition cannot proceed as filed. Accordingly, the Court will dismiss the petition with leave to amend to permit Petitioner to correct the noted deficiencies.

         I. Preliminary Screening

         Rule 4 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 Cir. 1971).

         II. Ground One is Not Cognizable in a Federal Habeas Petition

         Habeas corpus is the exclusive remedy for a state prisoner who challenges the fact of duration of his confinement and seeks immediate or speedier release. Reiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 500 (1973). In general, § 2254 is intended to redress violations of the U.S. Constitution. Estelle v. McGuire, 502 U.S. 62, 67-68 (1991).

         Habeas 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 claim:

(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; or
(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.

         "By 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).

         Petitioner's sole ground for relief alleges that he was convicted in violation of a statutory prohibition against multiple punishments for a single physical act. Petitioner identifies the statute only as § 654, without specifying a federal or state statutory title. He fails to set forth any factual basis for this conclusory allegation. As a result, the Court cannot evaluate whether Petitioner's claim meets the requirement of § 2254 of (1) an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States; or (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. If Petitioner chooses to amend his ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.