Unpublished Disposition, 940 F.2d 1534 (9th Cir. 1991)

MEMORANDUM^** 

Lawrence Dawson, an Arizona state prisoner, appeals pro se the district court's dismissal without prejudice of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition for failure to comply with Rule 2(c), Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases, 28 U.S.C. foll. Sec. 2254. We review de novo, Bianchi v. Blodgett, 925 F.2d 305, 308 (9th Cir. 1991), and we affirm.

Rule 2(c) provides in relevant part:

[the petition] shall specify all the grounds for relief which are available to the petitioner and of which he has or by the exercise of reasonable diligence should have knowledge and shall set forth in summary form the facts supporting each of the grounds thus specified.

28 U.S.C. foll. Sec. 2254. Moreover, if a petition does not substantially comply with the requirements of Rule 2, a district judge may order that the petition be returned to the petitioner. Rule 2(e), Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases, 28 U.S.C. foll. Sec. 2254.

Here, although Dawson specified four grounds for relief on a pre-printed form provided for section 2254 petitions, he did not state specific facts to support these claims. Instead, he attached a 51-page document to his petition that listed twenty-one "Issues to the Federal Court," and an additional eighteen "Questions for Review." The attachment also contained an appendix with numerous exhibits, but did not state how these documents related to his claims for relief. Accordingly, because Dawson's petition did not clearly set forth the grounds for relief and the facts supporting each ground, the district court did not err in dismissing Dawson's petition without prejudice because the petition does not substantially comply with Rule 2(c). See Rule 2(e), 28 U.S.C. foll. Sec. 2254. If Dawson chooses to file a new petition, he should set forth briefly the facts supporting each ground for relief, and if he chooses to attach an appendix, he should briefly state how the attached documents relate to his claims.

AFFIRMED.