United States District Court, E.D. California
ORDER DISMISSING PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS
WITH LEAVE TO AMEND (DOC. 1)
K. OBERTO UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
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.
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).
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
Ground One is Not Cognizable in a Federal 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).
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).
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