Darn v. Hedgpeth
Filing
2
ORDER DISMISSING PETITION WITH LEAVE TO AMEND. Signed by Judge Richard Seeborg on 8/23/12. (Attachments: # 1 Appendix Certificate of Service)(cl, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/24/2012)
<![CDATA[
1
2
3
*E-Filed 8/24/12*
4
5
6
7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
8
SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION
11
12
15
16
ORDER DISMISSING PETITION
WITH LEAVE TO AMEND
Petitioner,
13
14
No. C 12-2029 RS (PR)
JASON DARN,
v.
ANTHONY HEDGPETH, Warden,
Respondent.
/
17
INTRODUCTION
18
19
Petitioner seeks federal habeas relief from his state convictions. The petition for such
20
relief is now before the Court for review pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2243 and Rule 4 of the
21
Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. The filing fee has been paid.
BACKGROUND
22
23
According to the petition, in 2008, an Alameda County Superior Court jury convicted
24
petitioner of murder. He received a sentence of life without the possibility of parole, plus
25
another sentence of 25 years-to-life.
26
27
28
No. C 12-2029 RS (PR)
ORDER DISMISSING PETITION
1
DISCUSSION
2
This Court may entertain a petition for writ of habeas corpus “in behalf of a person in
3
custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court only on the ground that he is in custody in
4
violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a).
5
A district court considering an application for a writ of habeas corpus shall “award the writ
6
or issue an order directing the respondent to show cause why the writ should not be granted,
7
unless it appears from the application that the applicant or person detained is not entitled
8
thereto.” 28 U.S.C. § 2243. Summary dismissal is appropriate only where the allegations in
9
the petition are vague or conclusory, palpably incredible, or patently frivolous or false. See
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
Hendricks v. Vasquez, 908 F.2d 490, 491 (9th Cir. 1990).
11
As grounds for federal habeas relief, petitioner alleges that (1) defense counsel
12
rendered ineffective assistance; and (2) there is new evidence showing his innocence. Claim
13
1, when liberally construed, appears to be cognizable on federal habeas review. Claim 2,
14
however, does not. “Claims of actual innocence based on newly discovered evidence have
15
never been held to state a ground for federal habeas relief absent an independent
16
constitutional violation occurring in the underlying state criminal proceeding.” Herrera v.
17
Collins, 506 U.S. 390, 400 (1993). “[S]uch evidence must bear upon the constitutionality of
18
the applicant’s detention; the existence merely of newly discovered evidence relevant to the
19
guilt of a state prisoner is not a ground for relief on federal habeas corpus.” Townsend v.
20
Sain, 372 U.S. 293, 317 (1963). So, for this claim to be cognizable on federal habeas review,
21
petitioner must show that an independent constitutional violation occurred in the underlying
22
state criminal proceedings in regard to this evidence.
23
Accordingly, the petition is DISMISSED WITH LEAVE TO AMEND. Petitioner
24
shall file an amended petition addressing the concerns detailed above within 30 days from
25
the date this order is filed. The amended petition must include the caption and civil case
26
number used in this order (12-2029 RS (PR)) and the words AMENDED PETITION on the
27
first page. Because an amended petition completely replaces the previous petitions,
28
2
No. C 12-2029 RS (PR)
ORDER DISMISSING PETITION
1
petitioner must include in his first amended petition all the claims he wishes to present,
2
including the ineffective assistance of counsel claim found cognizable above. Petitioner may
3
not incorporate material from the prior petition by reference. Failure to file an amended
4
petition in accordance with this order will result in dismissal of this action with prejudice for
5
failure to prosecute under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b).
6
7
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: August 23, 2012
RICHARD SEEBORG
United States District Judge
8
9
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3
No. C 12-2029 RS (PR)
ORDER DISMISSING PETITION
]]>
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?
