United States District Court, E.D. California
ORDER AND FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
ALLISON CLAIRE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis
with a proposed amended petition for a writ of habeas corpus
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. For the reasons set forth
below, the undersigned recommends that this case be
Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases, this court
is required to conduct a preliminary review of all petitions
for writ of habeas corpus filed by state prisoners. Upon
review of petitioner’s original filing (ECF No. 1),
which the undersigned found “confusing at best, ”
the court directed petitioner to submit a proposed amended
petition on the form provided, fully setting forth his claims
and demonstrating the exhaustion of his claims in the state
courts. ECF No. 9.
proposed amended petition, ECF No. 10, fails to correct the
defects previously identified and fails to comply with the
court’s directions. The amended complaint, which is not
set forth on the court’s form, indicates that
petitioner is attempting to challenge the procedures and
evidence relied upon by law enforcement officials in
arresting petitioner for a parole violation in 1993,
interrogating him over a period of several months, and
relying on fabricated testimony and withholding crucial
evidence in Yolo County Superior Court. Petitioner also
alleges in broad terms that he has been subject to cruel and
unusual punishment and denied due process; he invokes
Marsy’s Law, and asserts misapplication of
California’s “Three Strikes Law.” These
putative claims, however, lack any clearly articulated
petitioner’s narrative includes no reference to his
attempts to pursue and exhaust these matters in the state
courts. Unexhausted petitions may, under limited
circumstances, be stayed pending exhaustion, upon a showing
that “‘ petitioner had good cause for his
failure to exhaust,  his unexhausted claims are
potentially meritorious, and  there is no indication that
the petitioner engaged in intentionally dilatory litigation
tactics.’” Mena v. Long, 813 F.3d 907,
910, 912 (9th Cir. 2016) (quoting Rhines v. Weber,
544 U.S. 269, 278 (2005)). Because the instant proposed
amended petition contains no clearly identifiable claims, the
court is unable to assess the merits of any potentially
cognizable claims or whether good cause supports
petitioner’s apparent failure to exhaust those claims.
review of the cases petitioner has previously filed in this
court indicates that he has attempted on
numerous occasions, without success, to pursue a petition for
writ of habeas corpus. Significantly, the first such case,
Hatchett v. Henry, Case No. 2:97-cv-0458 GEB GGH P,
was dismissed based on petitioner’s failure to exhaust
state court remedies. See id., ECF Nos. 5, 6.
being no clear ground upon which this case may proceed, the
undersigned will recommend its dismissal without prejudice.
Amendment having failed to appreciably improve the petition,
further amendment would be futile.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Clerk of Court shall randomly
assign a district judge to this action.
IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed
findings and recommendations are submitted to the United
States District Judge assigned to this case, pursuant to the
provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within fourteen
(14) days after being served with these findings and
recommendations, petitioner may file written objections with
the court. Such a document should be captioned
“Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and
Recommendations.” Petitioner is are advised that
failure to file objections within the specified time may
waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order.
Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).
 This court may take judicial notice of
its own records and the records of other courts. See
United States v. Howard, 381 F.3d 873, 876 n.1 (9th Cir.
2004); United States v. Wilson, 631 F.2d 118, 119
(9th Cir. 1980); see also Fed.R.Evid. 201 (court may
take judicial notice of facts that are capable of accurate