United States District Court, D. Hawaii
ORDER DISMISSING PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS
AND DENYING A CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY
DERRICK K. WATSON UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
the Court is pro se Petitioner Francis Anthony Grandinetti,
II's pleading entitled: “2018 Federal Habeas Corpus
Petition (MDL) with PI and TRO Exhibits”
(“Petition”). ECF No. 1. Grandinetti is a Hawaii
state prisoner currently incarcerated at the Saguaro
Correctional Center (“SCC”) located in Eloy,
Arizona. He seeks relief under “FRAP 9, FRAP 34,
” Supreme Court Rule 36, 28 U.S.C. §§ 2241,
2253, 2255, and “other U.S. codes applicable.”
Id. Because Grandinetti is in custody pursuant to a
state court judgment of conviction,  is neither a pretrial
detainee nor awaiting extradition,  and is not bringing an
appeal, 28 U.S.C. § 2241, Fed. R. App. P. 9 and 34, and
Supreme Court Rule 36 do not apply. The Court reviews
Grandinetti's Petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, based
on his allegations “that he is in custody in violation
of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United
States.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a). For the following
reasons, Grandinetti's Petition is DISMISSED and any
request for a certificate of appealability is DENIED.
of the Rules Governing § 2254 Cases in the United States
District Court (“Habeas Rule 4”) provides that
district courts “must dismiss” a petition
“[i]f it plainly appears from the petition and any
attached exhibits that the petitioner is not entitled to
relief in the district court.” See,
e.g., Clayton v. Biter, 868 F.3d 840,
845-46 (9th Cir. 2017); O'Bremski v. Maass, 915
F.2d 418, 420 (9th Cir. 1990); Nelson v. Biter, 33
F.Supp.3d 1173, 1176-78 (C.D. Cal. 2014) (dismissing a habeas
petition deemed not cognizable). The Court may dismiss a
petition for writ of habeas corpus on its own motion under
Habeas Rule 4, pursuant to the respondent's motion to
dismiss, or after an answer to the petition is filed.
Rule 8 Advisory Committee Notes; see also Herbst v.
Cook, 260 F.3d 1039, 1042-43 (9th Cir. 2001). Such
dismissal is appropriate “only where the allegations in
the petition are ‘vague [or] conclusory' or
‘palpably incredible, ' or ‘patently
frivolous or false.'” Hendricks v.
Vasquez, 908 F.2d 490, 491 (9th Cir. 1990) (quoting
Blackledge v. Allison, 431 U.S. 63, 75-76 (1977))
(internal citations omitted). Habeas corpus petitions must
meet heightened pleading requirements. McFarland v.
Scott, 512 U.S. 849, 856 (1994). An application for a
federal writ of habeas corpus filed by a prisoner who is in
state custody pursuant to a judgment of a state court must
“specify all the grounds for relief which are available
to the petitioner . . . and shall set forth in summary form
the facts supporting each of the grounds thus
specified.” Habeas Rule 2(c) (requiring the petition to
(1) specify all grounds of relief available to the
petitioner; (2) state the facts supporting each ground; and
(3) state the relief requested). “‘[N]otice'
pleading is not sufficient, for the petition is expected to
state facts that point to a ‘real possibility of
constitutional error.'” Habeas Rule 4 Advisory
Committee Notes (quoting Aubut v. Maine, 431 F.2d
688, 689 (1st Cir. 1970)); O'Bremski, 915 F.2d
at 420 (quoting Blackledge, 431 U.S. at 75 n.7).
states that SCC, a private prison formerly operated by the
Corrections Corporation of America (“CCA”), was
recently taken over by CoreCivic. He complains that he was
not informed of this change in management until April 29,
2018,  when he received a copy of his
“Progress Report for the State of Hawaii, ” dated
March 2018, showing “CoreCivic” in its heading.
See Exs., ECF No. 1-1, PageID #2. He states that
President Trump “may be for increasing federal
private-contracting ‘growth, '” and compares
this with Presidents Clinton, Bush, and Obama's alleged
positions regarding private prisons and other prison issues.
Pet., ECF No. 1. Grandinetti makes no specific claims or
argument, but instead submits twenty-four pages of exhibits,
including the Progress Report at issue, previous Progress
Reports showing “CCA-Saguaro Correctional Center”
in the heading, and various medical and “Inmate”
requests. A comparison of Grandinetti's institutional and
criminal history information in the CoreCivic Progress Report
reveals that it is essentially identical to that set forth in
his earlier CCA-Saguaro Correctional Center Progress Reports.
Petition is the definition of “vague and
conclusory.” He fails to explain the grounds for relief
that apply to his Petition, set forth any facts
suggesting that his constitutional rights were violated,
identify any specific constitutional violation, or state the
relief that he requests (although presumably he seeks
even if the Petition were less conclusory, Grandinetti's
apparent allegation that his constitutional rights were
violated when CoreCivic, rather than CCA, began managing SCC,
or because he allegedly received untimely notice of this
change, is patently frivolous and fails to state a colorable
claim for relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Nothing else
within the Petition or its exhibits permits an inference that
Grandinetti is entitled to habeas relief. The Petition must
pleadings must be construed liberally and given the benefit
of any doubt before dismissal without leave to amend.
Nordstrom v. Ryan, 762 F.3d 903, 908 (9th Cir.
2014). It is apparent, however, that no set of facts
regarding the change of management at SCC, Grandinetti's
lack of notice of this change, or any other possible habeas
claim based on his exhibits would entitle him to the habeas
relief he seeks. This dismissal is therefore without leave to
Petition is vague, conclusory, patently frivolous, fails to
state any cognizable claim for habeas relief, and is not
amenable to amendment. It is DISMISSED with prejudice.
Hendricks, 908 F.2d at 491; Habeas Rule 4.
reasonable jurists would not find the Court's decision to
dismiss the Petition wrong or debatable, any request for ...