Unpublished Disposition, 921 F.2d 280 (9th Cir. 1990)

MEMORANDUM^** 

Wilber Glen Geter, an Arizona state prisoner, appeals pro se the district court's summary dismissal of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus. We review de novo, O'Bremski v. Maass, 915 F.2d 418, 420 (9th Cir. 1990), and affirm.

The district court dismissed Geter's petition because the claims were vague, conclusory, incomprehensible and without arguable basis in law. We review the district court's dismissal as a summary dismissal under Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Habeas Corpus Petitions under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. See O'Bremski, 915 F.2d at 420.

Rule 4 enables a district judge to order summary dismissal of a petition " [i]f it plainly appears from the face of the petition and any exhibits annexed to it that the petitioner is not entitled to relief in the district court." Gutierrez v. Griggs, 695 F.2d 1195, 1198 (9th Cir. 1983) (quoting Advisory Committee Note to Rule 4, Rules Governing Habeas Corpus Cases, 28 U.S.C. Foll. Sec. 2254). "Rule 4 explicitly allows a district court to dismiss summarily the petition on the merits when no claim for relief is stated." Id.

Here, Geter was given two opportunities to amend his petition. He alleged numerous violations of Arizona statutes, the Arizona constitution, and the United States constitution. However, he failed to allege any specific facts that showed particular violations of federal law. In a habeas petition, " ' " [n]otice" pleading is not sufficient, for the petition is expected to state facts that point to a "real possibility of constitutional error." ' " O'Bremski, 915 F.2d at 420 (quoting Blackledge v. Allison, 431 U.S. 63, 75 n. 7 (1977) (quoting Advisory Committee Note to Rule 4, Rules Governing Habeas Corpus Cases, 28 U.S.C. Foll. Sec. 2254 (quotation omitted))). Because Geter repeatedly failed to allege any particular constitutional violation, the district did not err in summarily dismissing his second amended petition.

AFFIRMED.