(HC) Jackson v. Arnold
1:17-cv-01670
E.D. Cal.Dec 18, 2017Background
- Petitioner Kenneth A. Jackson filed a federal habeas corpus petition in this Court on December 8, 2017; the case was transferred to the Fresno Division as venue was proper there.
- The petition consisted largely of letters to counsel, state-court pleadings, and exhibits; it did not identify specific federal grounds, supporting facts, or requested relief on the federal habeas form.
- The Court performed a preliminary review under Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases and found the petition failed to state a cognizable federal claim and failed to show exhaustion of state remedies.
- Records indicate Petitioner pursued habeas relief in Madera County Superior Court but did not present his federal claims to the California Supreme Court.
- The Court dismissed the petition without prejudice, granted Petitioner 30 days to file a First Amended Petition using the form provided by the Clerk, and instructed that failure to comply would result in dismissal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Failure to state a cognizable federal habeas claim | Jackson submitted documents he contends show federal error (letters, state pleadings, exhibits) | Respondent argued petition does not identify federal grounds or facts as required by §2254 and Rule 2(c) | Court: Dismissed for failure to state a claim; granted leave to amend using the form petition |
| Failure to exhaust state remedies | Jackson appears to contend state habeas filings suffice | Respondent/record show Petitioner did not present federal claims to the California Supreme Court | Court: Petition is unexhausted; dismissal without prejudice; may cure in amended petition by showing exhaustion |
| Procedural/Form requirements (use of form, signature, specificity) | Jackson relied on attached documents instead of completing form and specifying relief | Court: §2254 and Rule 2(c) require explicit grounds, supporting facts, requested relief, and signature under penalty of perjury | Court: Directed Clerk to provide form; ordered First Amended Petition titled as such and referencing the case number within 30 days |
Key Cases Cited
- Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475 (1973) (habeas corpus challenges the legality of custody)
- O’Bremski v. Maass, 915 F.2d 418 (9th Cir. 1990) (Rule 4 summary dismissal authority)
- Rose v. Lundy, 455 U.S. 509 (1982) (unexhausted claims require dismissal under the exhaustion doctrine)
- Coleman v. Thompson, 501 U.S. 722 (1991) (comity-based exhaustion principles)
- Duncan v. Henry, 513 U.S. 364 (1995) (state courts must be alerted that federal claims are being asserted)
- Picard v. Connor, 404 U.S. 270 (1971) (requirement to fairly present federal claims to state courts)
- Raspberry v. Garcia, 448 F.3d 1150 (9th Cir. 2006) (federal court may dismiss where petitioner did not present claims to state supreme court)
- Jimenez v. Rice, 276 F.3d 478 (9th Cir. 2001) (dismissal where claims not presented to highest state court)