Raymond Jenkins v. San Bernardino County
5:20-cv-02220
C.D. Cal.Nov 16, 2020Background:
- Petitioner Raymond Jenkins, a West Valley Detention Center inmate, filed an unsigned habeas petition on a California state form on October 20, 2020; the court construed it as a § 2254 petition.
- Petition alleges San Bernardino County Jail is abusing its authority by failing to release low‑risk inmates pursuant to the Governor’s order and seeks release and charges against the jail.
- Procedural defects: submitted on a state form rather than the court’s CV‑69, captioned for the Superior Court, and not signed as required by Rule 2(c)(5) and 28 U.S.C. § 2242.
- The petition gives no clear indication that Jenkins exhausted state remedies; the court noted a prior similar petition (CV 20‑1125) was dismissed for failure to exhaust.
- The court concluded the claim asserts state‑law or policy errors (not a federal constitutional violation) and is therefore not cognizable on federal habeas review; the petition was summarily dismissed without prejudice.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Venue / Form | Jenkins filed a habeas petition seeking relief | Petition used state form and names Superior Court, not federal court | Court treated filing as improper for this district; procedural defect (could be cured) |
| Signature requirement | Jenkins filed the petition (no signature shown) | Petition fails Rule 2(c)(5) / § 2242 signature requirement | Unsigned petition is defective under federal rules (must be signed) |
| Exhaustion of state remedies | Jenkins asserts claims about jail policy; exhaustion status unclear | Claims appear unexhausted; prior dismissal for failure to exhaust supports non‑exhaustion | Court unsure but likely unexhausted; dismissal for failure to exhaust is appropriate if only unexhausted claims |
| Cognizability under § 2254 | Jail abused authority by not following Governor’s order; seeks release | Alleged wrongs are state‑law/policy issues, not federal constitutional violations | Claim is not a cognizable federal habeas ground; petition dismissed on the merits (without prejudice) |
Key Cases Cited
- Estelle v. McGuire, 502 U.S. 62 (1991) (federal habeas does not lie for errors of state law)
- O’Sullivan v. Boerckel, 526 U.S. 838 (1999) (state remedies must be exhausted by presenting federal claims through state appellate process)
- Duncan v. Henry, 513 U.S. 364 (1995) (fair presentation requirement for state exhaustion of federal claims)
- Rasberry v. Garcia, 448 F.3d 1150 (9th Cir. 2006) (district court may dismiss petitions that contain only unexhausted claims)
- Gatlin v. Madding, 189 F.3d 882 (9th Cir. 1999) (applying O’Sullivan to California’s exhaustion requirement)
- White v. Lewis, 874 F.2d 599 (9th Cir. 1989) (Rule 4 authorizes summary dismissal of habeas petitions on procedural grounds)