Shazer Fernando Limas v. Warden

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA CIVIL MINUTES — GENERAL Case No. _ SACV 25-00336-DSF (KS) Date: February 26, 2025 Title = Shazer Fernando Limas v, Warden Present: The Honorable: Karen L. Stevenson, Chief United States Magistrate Judge Gay Roberson N/A Deputy Clerk Court Reporter / Recorder Attorneys Present for Plaintiffs: Attorneys Present for Defendants: Proceedings: (INCHAMBERS) ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE: DISMISSAL INTRODUCTION On February 20, 2025, Petitioner, a California inmate proceeding pro se, filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person in State Custody under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. (Dkt. No. 1.)

The Petition identifies a December 12, 2022 conviction of murder in the Orange County Superior Court. (/d. at 2.) However, the Petition does not name a respondent, raises no grounds for relief, and articulates no supporting facts. (/d. at 1, 5-6.)

LEGAL STANDARD Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts, 28 U.S.C. foll. § 2254 (“Habeas Rules”), requires a district court to dismiss a petition without ordering a responsive pleading where “it plainly appears from the petition and any attached exhibits that the petitioner is not entitled to relief.” Rule 4 reflects Congress’s intent for the district courts to take an active role in summarily disposing of facially defective habeas petitions. Boyd v. Thompson, 147 F.3d 1124, 1127 (9th Cir. 1998). However, a district court’s use of this summary dismissal power is not without limits. Jd. at 1128. A habeas court must give a petitioner notice of the defect and the consequences for failing to correct it as well as an opportunity to respond to the argument for dismissal. Jd.

Habeas Rule 2(a) requires a habeas petitioner to “name as respondent the state officer who has custody” of Petitioner pursuant to a state-court judgment. Furthermore, Habeas Rule 2(c) requires a habeas petition to “specify all grounds for relief available to the petitioner” and “state the facts supporting each ground.” See Jones v. California, No. 10-cv-2117-WQH (WMc), 2010 CV-90 (03/15) Civil Minutes — General Page 1 of 3 CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL Case No. SACV 25-00336-DSF (KS) Date: February 26, 2025 Title Shazer Fernando Limas v. Warden WL 4868067, at *1 (S.D. Cal. Nov. 23, 2010) (a federal habeas petition brought under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 that contained “no claims or factual allegations whatsoever” was subject to dismissal for violating Habeas Rule 2(c)).

ANALYSIS AND ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE Here, in the absence of a named respondent or any claims for relief, the pending Petition violates Habeas Rule 2(a) and (c), and without such crucial information it plainly appears from the face of the Petition that Petitioner is not entitled to relief. Jones, 2010 WL 4868067 at *1; Habeas Rule 4. However, in the interest of justice, in lieu of recommending immediate dismissal, the Court will allow Petitioner the opportunity to file an amended habeas petition that is not defective.

Boyd, 147 F.3d at 1128.

Based on the foregoing, Petitioner is ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE, no later than March 28, 2025, why the Petition should not be dismissed. To discharge this Order and proceed with this action, Petitioner shall file, no later than the March 28, 2025 deadline, a First Amended Petition that names a proper respondent and articulates claims for relief with supporting facts, as instructed on the Central District’s form habeas petition that Petitioner used. See Habeas Rule 2(d) (“The petition must substantially follow either the form appended to these rules or a form prescribed by a local district-court rule. The clerk must make forms available to petitioners without charge.”).

The Clerk is directed to send Petitioner another copy of the Central District’s form habeas petition for his convenience. Id. Petitioner is expressly warned that his failure to timely comply with this Order and file a First Amended Petition that shows cause for proceeding with this action will result in the Court recommending dismissal pursuant to Habeas Rules 2 and 4, and Rule 41 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. \\ \\ \\ UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA CIVIL MINUTES —- GENERAL Case No. _ SACV 25-00336-DSF (KS) Date: February 26, 2025 Title Shazer Fernando Limas v. Warden If Petitioner no longer wishes to pursue this action, he may voluntarily dismiss it by filing a signed document entitled “Notice of Voluntary Dismissal” in accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Initials of Preparer or CV-90 (03/15) Civil Minutes — General Page 3 of 3