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.

Gilbert v. On Habeas Corpus

United States District Court, E.D. California

July 24, 2019

CHAKA GILBERT, Petitioner,
v.
ON HABEAS CORPUS, Respondent.

          FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION TO DISMISS PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS WITHOUT PREJUDICE

         Petitioner Chaka Gilbert is proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. As the petition fails to specify any grounds for relief and appears to be unexhausted, the undersigned recommends the petition be dismissed without prejudice.

         I.

         BACKGROUND

         On May 28, 2019, Petitioner filed the instant federal habeas petition. (ECF No. 1). On June 3, 2019, the Court ordered Petitioner to show cause why the petition should not be dismissed for failure to specify grounds for relief and failure to exhaust state judicial remedies. (ECF No. 4). To date, Petitioner has failed to file a response, and the time for doing so has passed.

         II. DISCUSSION

         Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases requires preliminary review of a habeas petition and allows a district court to dismiss a petition before the respondent is ordered to file a response, if it “plainly appears from the petition and any attached exhibits that the petitioner is not entitled to relief in the district court.” Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases; see also McFarland v. Scott, 512 U.S. 849, 856 (1994).

         A. Failure to Specify Grounds for Relief

         The basic scope of habeas corpus is prescribed by statute:

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 in custody pursuant to a judgment of a State court only on the ground that he is in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.

28 U.S.C. § 2254(a); see also Rule 1 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. Further, Petitioner must state his claim with sufficient specificity. See McFarland, 512 U.S. at 856; Hendricks v. Vasquez, 908 F.2d 490, 491-92 (9th Cir. 1990). Rule 2(c) of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases states that a petition must “(1) specify all the grounds for relief available to the petitioner; [and] (2) state the facts supporting each ground.” Rule 2(c) of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases.

         Although it appears that Petitioner generally challenges his commitment to Coalinga State Hospital, the instant petition does not set forth any information or allegations regarding Petitioner's grounds for habeas relief. As the petition fails to state a claim for relief, it should be dismissed. Although 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 granted, Jarvis v. Nelson, 440 F.2d 13, 14 (9th Cir. 1971), Petitioner failed to respond to the Court's order to show cause that indicated Petitioner would be granted an opportunity to file an amended petition to specify his grounds for relief and state the facts supporting each ground. Accordingly, dismissal without prejudice is warranted.

         B. Exhaustion

         A petitioner in state custody who is proceeding with a petition for writ of habeas corpus must exhaust state judicial remedies. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(1). The exhaustion doctrine is based on comity to the state court and gives the state court the initial opportunity to correct the state's alleged constitutional deprivations. Coleman v. Thompson, 501 U.S. 722, 731 (1991); Rose v. Lundy, 455 U.S. 509, 518 (1982). A petitioner can satisfy the exhaustion requirement by providing the highest state court with a full and fair opportunity to consider each claim before presenting it to the federal court. O'Sullivan v. Boerckel, 526 U.S. 838, 845 (1999); Duncan v. Henry, 513 U.S. 364, 365 (1995); Picard v. Connor, 404 U.S. 270, 276 (1971).

         It appears that Petitioner has not presented any claims to the California Supreme Court. (ECF No. 1 at 3).[1] It is possible that Petitioner has presented claims to the California Supreme Court and failed to indicate this to the Court, but as Petitioner has not responded to the order to show cause, it appears that Petitioner failed to exhaust any claims. If Petitioner has not sought relief in the California Supreme Court for ...


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.