United States District Court, E.D. California
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION TO DISMISS PETITION FOR
WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS WITHOUT PREJUDICE
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.
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.
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).
Failure to Specify Grounds for Relief
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.
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
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).
appears that Petitioner has not presented any claims to the
California Supreme Court. (ECF No. 1 at 3). 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 ...