Cedrick D. Jones v. Warden
- Proceeding
- original
- Outcome
- other — As grounds for relief in the 27 Petition, Petitioner states: “Trial court had imposed u
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Dana M. Sabraw (author)
Analysis
The court reviewed a pro se state prisoner's habeas corpus petition that failed to pay the filing fee and contained legally insufficient claims. The court dismissed the case without prejudice, granting the petitioner until September 7, 2026, to pay the fee or qualify for in forma pauperis status and file an amended petition.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Dismissal of the case without prejudice due to failure to pay the filing fee or submit an in forma pauperis application.“Because this Court cannot proceed until Petitioner has either paid the $5.00 filing fee or qualified to proceed in forma pauperis, the Court DISMISSES the case without prejudice.” | agree with court The court correctly identified that it lacks jurisdiction to proceed on the merits without the filing fee or IFP status. Dismissing without prejudice is the standard procedural mechanism to allow a pro se prisoner to cure this deficiency. |
Determination that the petition fails to state a cognizable federal claim.“Therefore, even if Petitioner satisfies the filing fee requirement, the Petition as drafted would be subject to dismissal.” | agree with court The court correctly applied the requirements of 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a), noting the petitioner failed to allege custody in violation of federal law. The court also correctly noted that the petition contained only legal conclusions without factual support, satisfying the criteria for summary dismissal under Rule 4(b) of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. |
The order itself: sound — The order is procedurally sound. It correctly identifies the jurisdictional barrier (filing fee) and the substantive deficiency (failure to state a federal claim). The court provides clear instructions for the petitioner to cure the defects, which is appropriate for a pro se litigant. The citation to Hernandez v. Ylst is appropriate for the context of § 2254 claims.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 CEDRICK D. JONES, Case No.: 26cv3853-DMS-BJW 12 Petitioner, ORDER DISMISSING CASE 13 v. WITHOUT PREJUDICE 14 WARDEN, 15 Respondent. 16 17 Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed a Petition for a Writ of Habeas 18 Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 but has failed to pay the $5.00 filing fee or submit a 19 request to proceed in forma pauperis. (ECF No. 1.) Because this Court cannot proceed 20 until Petitioner has either paid the $5.00 filing fee or qualified to proceed in forma pauperis, 21 the Court DISMISSES the case without prejudice. 22 In addition, the Petition fails to state a cognizable federal claim. To present a 23 cognizable federal habeas corpus claim under § 2254, a state prisoner must allege both that 24 he is in custody pursuant to a “judgment of a State court,” and that he is in custody in 25 “violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a); 26 see also Hernandez v. Ylst, 930 F.2d 714, 719 (9th Cir. 1991). As grounds for relief in the 27 Petition, Petitioner states: “Trial court had imposed unconstitutionally certified code 28 statutes as-applied to me.” (ECF No. 1 at 5.) It appears Petitioner is referring to state 1 ||statutes only (see id. at 1), and nowhere in the Petition does Petitioner allege he is in 2 || custody in violation of the Constitution or laws of the United States. Petitioner attaches 3 state supreme court exhaustion petition as an exhibit in which he presents the identical 4 ||claim as in his Petition here. (ECF No. 1-2 at 5.) Although he states in the state court 5 || petition as the reason for his custody that: “I was NOT disclosed of the true nature and 6 || cause of the accusation. (6th Amend.; and besides see, 27 C.F.R. §72.11),” there are no 7 || factual allegations supporting the claim, merely legal conclusions, and the nature of his 8 ||claim is unclear. Therefore, even if Petitioner satisfies the filing fee requirement, the 9 || Petition as drafted would be subject to dismissal. See R. 4(b), Rules Governing Section 10 2254 Cases (2019) (stating courts may summarily dismiss a habeas petition “[i]f it plainly 11 |;}appears from the face of the petition and any attached exhibits that the petitioner is not 12 || entitled to relief in the district court’). 13 If Petitioner wishes to proceed with this action, he must either pay the $5.00 filing 14 || fee or submit an application to proceed in forma pauperis and file a First Amended Petition 15 || which alleges that he is in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws of the United 16 States no later than September 7, 2026. The Clerk of Court will send a blank Southern 17 || District of California In Forma Pauperis application and a blank Southern District of 18 || California amended 2254 petition form to Petitioner along with a copy of this Order. 19 IT IS SO ORDERED. 2» J \ 40 || Dated: July 7, 2026 Jorn Yn « >] Hon. Dana M. Sabraw United States District Judge 22 23 24 25 26 27 28