Opinion
Civil No. 12-116 BEN (MDD)
01-24-2012
ADRIAN FERNANDO VASQUEZ, Petitioner, v. AREF FAKHOURY, Warden, Respondent.
ORDER DISMISSING CASE WITHOUT PREJUDICE AND WITH LEAVE TO AMEND
On January 11, 2012, Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 in the Central District of California. [ECF No. 1.] On January 13, 2012, the case was transferred to this Court. [ECF No. 4.]
FAILURE TO SATISFY FILING FEE REQUIREMENT
Petitioner has failed to pay the $5.00 filing fee and has failed to move to proceed in forma pauperis. Because this Court cannot proceed until Petitioner has either paid the $5.00 filing fee or qualified to proceed in forma pauperis, the Court DISMISSES the case without prejudice. See Rule 3(a), 28 U.S.C. foil. § 2254.
FAILURE TO STATE GROUNDS FOR RELIEF IN PETITION
In addition, Rule 2(c) of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases states that the petition "shall set forth in summary form the facts supporting each of the grounds . . . specified [in the petition]." Rule 2(c), 28 U.S.C. foil. § 2254; see also Boehme v. Maxwell, 423 F.2d 1056, 1058 (9th Cir. 1970) (trial court's dismissal of federal habeas proceeding affirmed where petitioner made conclusory allegations instead of factual allegations showing that he was entitled to relief). Here, Petitioner has violated Rule 2(c). Although Petitioner does not fail to state generalized constitutional grounds for relief, he does fail to provide specific factual allegations in support of such grounds.
While courts should liberally interpret pro se pleadings with leniency and understanding, this should not place on the reviewing court the entire onus of ferreting out grounds for relief. Zichko v. Idaho, 247 F.3d 1015, 1020-21 (9th Cir. 2001). The Court finds that the Petition contains conclusory allegations without any specific facts in support of relief. A federal court may not entertain a petition that contains allegations which are conclusory.
This Court would have to engage in a tenuous analysis in order to attempt to identify and make sense of the Petition and its numerous attachments. In order to satisfy Rule 2(c), Petitioner must point to a "real possibility of constitutional error." Cf. Blackledge v. Allison, 431 U.S. 63, 75 n.7 (1977) (internal quotation marks omitted). Facts must be stated, in the petition, with sufficient detail to enable the Court to determine, from the face of the petition, whether further habeas corpus review is warranted. Adams v. Armontrout, 897 F.2d 332, 334 (8th Cir. 1990). Moreover, the allegations should be sufficiently specific to permit the respondent to assert appropriate objections and defenses. Harris v. Allen, 739 F. Supp. 564, 565 (W.D. Okla. 1989). Here, the lack of grounds for relief in the Petition prevents the Respondent from being able to assert appropriate objections and defenses.
Due to Petitioner's unsatisfactory showing, the Court dismisses the action without prejudice. Should Petitioner decide to file a new petition, he is advised to clearly and succinctly state all grounds for relief using the First Amended Petition form sent to Petitioner with this order.
CONCLUSION AND ORDER
For the foregoing reasons, the Court DISMISSES the action for Petitioner's failure to satisfy the filing fee requirement, and state grounds for relief in the Petition. If Petitioner wishes to proceed with this case, he must submit, no later than March 27,2012. a copy of this Order with the $5.00 fee or with adequate proof of his inability to pay the fee AND a First Amended Petition which cures the pleading deficiencies noted above. The Clerk of Court is directed to send Petitioner a blank Southern District of California In Forma Pauperis Application and a blank First Amended Petition form, along with a copy of this Order.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
____________________________
HON. ROGER T. BENITEZ
United States District Court Judge