Beard
Beard v. Clarke
Opinion
Lead Opinion
MEMORANDUM **
California prisoner Bernard Beard appeals pro se the district court’s dismissal without prejudice of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus, contending his petition was not conclusory. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 , and affirm.
We review the district court’s decision to deny a habeas petition de novo. See Bri-biesca v. Galaza, 215 F.3d 1015, 1018 (9th Cir.2000). Beard’s contention is without merit.
“Conclusory allegations which are not supported by a statement of specific facts do not warrant habeas relief.” James v. Borg, 24 F.3d 20, 26 (9th Cir. 1994). Moreover, Rule 4 of the Rules Governing section 2254 Cases explicitly allows the district court to dismiss summarily a habeas petition when no claim for relief is stated. See O’Bremski v. Maass, 915 F.2d 418, 420 (9th Cir.1990). Notice pleading is insufficient; the petitioner must state sufficient facts. See id. (citing Blackledge v. Allison, 431 U.S. 63 , 75 n. 7, 97 S.Ct. 1621 , 52 L.Ed.2d 136 (1977)).
Beard did not cite to the record or otherwise present the district court with specific facts; neither did he present declarations or other evidentiary support. Although Beard did cite…