(HC) Miller v. Warden of Valley State Prison

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA STEPHEN S. MILLER, Case No. 1:19-cv-01519-JDP 12 Petitioner, ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY PETITION SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED FOR 13 v. FAILURE TO STATE A COGNIZABLE HABEAS CLAIM WARDEN OF VALLEY STATE PRISON, ECF No. 1 Respondent.

18 Petitioner Stephen S. Miller, a state prisoner without counsel, seeks a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. ECF No. 1. This matter is before us for preliminary review under Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. See Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases, Rule 4; 28 U.S.C. § 2243. Under Rule 4, a district court must dismiss a habeas petition if it “plainly appears” that the petitioner is not entitled to relief. See Valdez v. Montgomery, 918 23 F.3d 687, 693 (9th Cir. 2019); Boyd v. Thompson, 147 F.3d 1124, 1127 (9th Cir. 1998). To pass screening, petitioner must allege a violation of “clearly established federal law”—meaning a violation of a U.S. Supreme Court holding. See White v. Woodall, 572 U.S. 415, 419 (2014). At this early stage, Rule 4 gives “courts an active role in summarily disposing of facially defective habeas petitions.” Ross v. Williams, 896 F.3d 958, 968 (9th Cir. 2018) (citation omitted). The | rule also “imposes on courts the duty to screen out’ petitions that are vague and conclusory. Id. | We order petitioner to show cause why the petition should not be dismissed at screening for | failure to state a cognizable habeas claim.

4 Petitioner presented vague and conclusory allegations in his petition. As grounds for | relief, petitioner states that the Constitution and “all laws” apply to him and that his life sentence || was improper; he also makes reference to his “mental health.” See generally ECF No. 1.

7 | Petitioner has failed to allege any violations of clearly established federal law. See White, 572 | U.S. at 419 (2014). We will not construct a habeas claim for petitioner. See Pliler v. Ford, 542 | US. 225, 226 (2004) (noting that judges, “impartial decisionmakers,” may not give legal advice | to unrepresented litigants). Without an allegation of a constitutional rights violation arising from | his criminal conviction or sentence, petitioner has failed to state a claim sufficient to pass Rule 4 || screening.!

13 | Order 14 We order petitioner to show cause why his petition should not be dismissed for failure to | state a cognizable habeas claim. If petitioner wishes to continue seeking habeas relief, he should | respond to this order within fourteen days from the date of service with an amended petition. The | clerk’s office is directed to send petitioner a blank habeas petition form.

19 IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: _ February 21, 2020 21 UNIT#D STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE | No. 206.

26 ' Moreover, it appears that the petition is untimely. Absent rare circumstances, a habeas petition must be filed within one year of “the date on which the judgment became final by the conclusion || of direct review or the expiration of the time for seeking such review.” 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1)(A). Here, petitioner was sentenced in 2007 and filed his federal habeas petition in | 2019. ECF No. Lat 1.