United States District Court, C.D. California
CIVIL MINUTES-GENERAL
Present: The Honorable KENLY KIYA KATO, UNITED STATES
MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Proceedings:
(In Chambers) Order to Show Cause Why Petition Should Not Be
Dismissed For Failure To Name Proper Respondent And Failure
To Comply With Rule 8 And Habeas Rule 2(c)
I.
INTRODUCTION
On
December 10, 2019, Kenneth Buford Pollard
(“Petitioner”) filed a Petition for a Writ of
Habeas Corpus (“Petition”) purporting to
challenge his conviction for “false criminal
threats”. ECF Docket No. (“Dkt.”) 1. It
appears, however, the Petition is subject to dismissal
because: (1) the Petition fails to name a proper respondent;
and (2) the Petition fails to comply with Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 8 (“Rule 8”) and Rule 2(c) of the
Rules Governing Habeas Corpus Cases Under Section 2254
(“Habeas Rule 2(c)”). The Court will provide
Petitioner an opportunity to address these issues before
making a final determination regarding whether the Petition
should be dismissed.
II.
DISCUSSION
A.THE
PETITION FAILS TO NAME A PROPER RESPONDENT
“[T]he
proper respondent to a habeas petition is ‘the person
who has custody over [the petitioner].'”
Rumsfeld v. Padilla, 542 U.S. 426, 434, 124 S.Ct.
2711, 159 L.Ed.2d 513 (2004) (second alteration in original).
Thus, “the default rule is that the proper respondent
is the warden of the facility where the prisoner is being
held.” Id. at 435; see Stanley v. Cal.
Supreme Court, 21 F.3d 359, 360 (9th Cir. 1994) (as
amended May 18, 1994) (holding the proper respondent in a
habeas action is “typically . . . the warden of the
facility in which the petitioner is incarcerated”);
Brittingham v. United States, 982 F.2d 378,
379 (9th Cir. 1992) (per curiam). The Ninth Circuit has held
that the “[f]ailure to name the correct respondent
destroys personal jurisdiction.” Ortiz-Sandoval v.
Gomez, 81 F.3d 891, 894 (9th Cir. 1996) (as amended May
8, 1996).
Here,
the Petition names San Luis Obispo Sheriff's Department
as Respondent. See dkt. 1. However, Petitioner is
confined at California Correctional Institution in Tehachapi,
California. Id. San Luis Obispo Sheriff's
Department, therefore, does not have custody over Petitioner.
See Rumsfeld, 542 U.S. at 434. Accordingly, the
Petition is subject to dismissal for failure to name a proper
respondent.
B.THE
PETITION FAILS TO COMPLY WITH RULE 8 AND HABEAS RULE
2(c)
Under
Rule 8, a petition must contain a “short and plain
statement of the claim showing the pleader is entitled to
relief, ” and “[e]ach allegation must be simple,
concise, and direct.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a), (d); see
Petillo v. Los Angeles Dept. of Children & Family
Services, No. CV 17-08062-JFW (AS), 2018 WL 748290, at
*1 (C.D. Cal. Feb. 7, 2018) (applying Rule 8 standards to a
habeas petition). “[T]he ‘short and plain
statement' must provide the [respondent] with ‘fair
notice of what the [petitioner's] claim is and the
grounds upon which it rests.'” Dura Pharms.,
Inc. v. Broudo, 544 U.S. 336, 346, 125 S.Ct. 1627, 161
L.Ed.2d 577 (2005). “Experience teaches that, unless
cases are pled clearly and precisely, . . . the trial
court's docket becomes unmanageable, the litigants
suffer, and society loses confidence in the court's
ability to administer justice.” Bautista v. L.A.
Cty., 216 F.3d 837, 841 (9th Cir. 2000). A court cannot
grant relief based on conclusory allegations unsupported by
specific facts. James v. Borg, 24 F.3d 20, 26 (9th
Cir. 1996).
A court
may dismiss a habeas petition if it does not “state
facts that point to a real possibility of constitutional
error.” Blackledge v. Allison, 431 U.S. 63, 76
n.7, 97 S.Ct. 1621, 1630, 52 L.Ed.2d 136 (U.S. 1977)
(citation omitted). For instance, a court may dismiss a
complaint because it is unintelligible or frivolous
“where it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in
fact.” Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 324,
109 S.Ct. 1827, 104 L.Ed.2d 338 (1989); see Hines v.
Napolitano, No. CIV. 071816-WQH (RBB), 2007 WL 2859745,
at *1 (S.D. Cal. Sept. 26, 2007) (dismissing petition which
contained “unintelligible allegations without any
specific federal constitutional grounds for relief”;
court need not “engage in a tenuous analysis in order
to attempt to identify and ma[k]e sense of the
Petition”). Additionally, a court may dismiss a claim
as factually frivolous when the facts alleged are
implausible. Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25,
32-33, 112 S.Ct. 1728, 118 L.Ed.2d 340 (1992).
Habeas
Rule 2(c) “requires a more detailed statement [than
Rule 8]. The habeas rule instructs the petitioner to
‘specify all the grounds for relief available to
[him]' and to ‘state the facts supporting each
ground.'” Mayle v. Felix, 545 U.S. 644,
649, 125 S.Ct. 2562, 162 L.Ed.2d 582 (2005); see
Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States
District Courts. Consequently, in a habeas petition,
“notice pleading is not sufficient, ” and a
petitioner must “state facts that point to a real
possibility of constitutional error.” Id. at
655 (quoting Habeas Rule 4's 1976 Advisory Committee
Notes); McFarland v. Scott, 512 U.S. 849, 856, 114
S.Ct. 2568, 129 L.Ed.2d 666 (1994) (holding, under Habeas
Rule 2(c), “petitions must meet heightened pleading
requirements”).
Here,
the Petition fails to comply with Rule 8 and Habeas Rule
2(c). Specifically, the Petition fails to set forth any
grounds for relief and does not set forth facts that
“point to a real possibility of constitutional
error”. See dkt. 1 at 3-4; see also
Mayle, 545 U.S. at 649. The Petition is largely
unintelligible and illegible to the point that the Court
cannot interpret Petitioner's claims. See
Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 324. For example, Petitioner
appears to allege the “DA is Cyber Crimes using MEPV
embedded solutions vision systems targeting a nano wire LED
pro[s]thetics intraocular lens police can see threw and using
EMP WIFI fields.” See dkt. 1 at 5. Petitioner
appears to argue he is innocent because he told the victim to
“stop targeting his mind [and] control[ing the]
implant.” Id. at 3. The Court finds these
...