United States District Court, D. Hawaii
E. KOBAYASHI, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
the court is Petitioner Richard Eline's Petition Under 28
U.S.C. § 2254 for a Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person in
State Custody and in forma pauperis application. ECF Nos. 1,
3. Eline challenges the revocation of his probation in
State v. Eline, Cr. No. 15-1-01201 (Haw. 1st Cir.
2017), and State v. Eline, Cr. No. 12-1-01492,
entered in the Circuit Court of the First Circuit
(“circuit court”), State of Hawaii, on August 14,
2018. See eCourt Kokua:
and 1PC121001492) (last visit 7/1/2019).
following reasons, Eline's Petition is DISMISSED without
prejudice, his in forma pauperis application is GRANTED, and
any request for a certificate of appealability is DENIED. The
Clerk shall enter judgment and terminate this case.
Court must screen all actions brought by prisoners who seek
any form of relief from a governmental entity or officer or
employee of a governmental entity, including habeas relief.
28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). Rule 4 of the Rules Governing
Section 2254 Cases (Habeas Rule 4) requires the Court to
dismiss a habeas 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.” Habeas
Rule 11 applies the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to
habeas proceedings, “to the extent that they are not
inconsistent with any statutory provisions or these
rules.” Habeas Rule 2(c) requires every habeas petition
to (1) specify all the grounds for relief available to the
petitioner; (2) state the facts supporting each ground; and
(3) state the relief requested.
screening a habeas petition, the Court must accept the
allegations of the petition as true, Erickson v.
Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007), and construe it in the
light most favorable to the petitioner, see Scheuer v.
Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 236 (1974). See also Corjasso
v. Ayers, 278 F.3d 874, 878 (9th Cir. 2002) (“Pro
se habeas petitioners may not be held to the same technical
standards as litigants represented by counsel.”).
“It is well-settled that ‘[c]onclusory
allegations which are not supported by a statement of
specific facts do not warrant habeas relief.'”
Jones v. Gomez, 66 F.3d 199, 204 (9th Cir. 1995)
(quoting James v. Borg, 24 F.3d 20, 26 (9th Cir.
1994)); Porter v. Ollison, 620 F.3d 952, 958 (9th
Cir. 2010) (“[T]he petitioner is not entitled to the
benefit of every conceivable doubt; the court is obligated to
draw only reasonable factual inferences in the
petitioner's favor.”). That is, even a pro se
petitioner must give fair notice of his claims by stating the
factual and legal elements of each claim in a short, plain,
and succinct manner. See Mayle v. Felix, 545 U.S.
644, 648 (2005) (“In ordinary civil proceedings . . .
Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires only
‘a short and plain statement[.] . . . Rule 2(c) of the
Rules Governing Habeas Corpus Cases requires a more detailed
statement.”). Allegations in a petition that are vague,
conclusory, or palpably incredible, and that are unsupported
by a statement of specific facts, are insufficient to warrant
relief and are subject to summary dismissal. Jones,
66 F.3d at 204-05; James, 24 F.3d at 26.
records reveal that bench warrants for the revocation of
Eline's sentences of probation in Cr. Nos. 12-1-01492 and
15-1-01201 were served on May 31, 2018. See
https://jimspss1.courts.state.hi.us. On July 10, 2018,
the circuit court held a hearing on the motions for
revocation; Eline was present in custody and represented by
Catherine Gutierrez, Esq. The circuit court continued the
hearing until August 14, 2018.
was also present with counsel at the August 14, 2018 hearing
on the motions for revocation of probation. The minutes of
that hearing state:
Ms. Gutierrez represented that Defense is in receipt of the
motions for revocation of probation and that she has gone
over the motions with her client. Defendant will waive his
right to a hearing and stipulate to the violations. Defendant
sworn by Court. In response to Courts inquiry, Defendant
waived his right to hearing. Court found that Defendant
understood the allegations and terms and conditions of his
probation and that he inexcusably violated said terms and
conditions of probation. Court granted the motions and
revoked probation in each case. Counsel argued sentencing.
State went through procedural history of the cases and argued
for the open term. Ms. Gutierrez represented that Defendant
will honor the agreement previously made regarding serving an
open term. Defendant made a statement prior to imposition of
sentence. Court gave reasons and sentenced Defendant to the
open term of 5 years set forth in the Judgment of Conviction
and Sentence filed in each case.
Id. (1PC151001201 and 1PC121001492, 08/14/2018).
filed a notice of appeal to the circuit court and then to the
Hawaii Supreme Court. See CAAP-18-0000772; Eline
Decl. (Haw. App. 2018) (requesting to withdraw appeal, signed
and dated October 26, 2018). On November 5, 2018, however,
Eline signed a stipulation for Dismissal of Appeal. The
Intermediate Court of Appeals (“ICA”) approved
the stipulation and dismissed Eline's appeal on November
20, 2018. Id.; Order Approving the November 5, 2018
Stipulation for Dismissal of Appeal.
Grounds for ...