Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_07-cv-00846/USCOURTS-casd-3_07-cv-00846-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 28:2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

-1- 07cv0846

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JAMES FRANCK, Civil No. 07-0846 J (NLS)

Petitioner,

ORDER:

(1) GRANTING APPLICATION TO

PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS; and

(2) DISMISSING CASE WITHOUT

PREJUDICE AND WITH LEAVE TO

AMEND

v.

SUZAN HUBBARD, Warden, et al.,

Respondents.

Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has submitted a Petition for Writ of Habeas

Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, together with a request to proceed in forma pauperis. 

MOTION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS

Petitioner has $0.00 on account at the California correctional institution in which he is

presently confined. Petitioner cannot afford the $5.00 filing fee. Thus, the Court GRANTS

Petitioner’s application to proceed in forma pauperis, and allows Petitioner to prosecute the

above-referenced action as a poor person without being required to prepay fees or costs and

without being required to post security. The Clerk of the Court shall file the Petition for Writ

of Habeas Corpus without prepayment of the filing fee.

/ / 

/ / 

Case 3:07-cv-00846-J-NLS Document 3 Filed 05/17/07 Page 1 of 5
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (b)(1)-(2) states:

(b) (1) An application for a writ of habeas corpus on behalf of a person in custody pursuant to the

judgment of a State court shall not be granted unless it appears that -

(A) the applicant has exhausted the remedies available in the courts of the State; or

(B)(i) there is an absence of available State corrective process; or (ii) circumstances exist that 

render such process ineffective to protect the rights of the applicant.

 (2) An application for a writ of habeas corpus may be denied on the merits, notwithstanding the failure 

of the applicant to exhaust the remedies available in the courts of the State.

-2- 07cv0846

FAILURE TO SIGN THE PETITION

Rule 2(c) of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases provides that “[t]he petition shall

be typewritten or legibly handwritten and shall be signed under penalty of perjury by the

petitioner.” Rule 2(c), 28 U.S.C. foll. § 2254 (emphasis added). Here, Petitioner has failed to

sign the Petition. The Court cannot proceed with this action until Petitioner files a petition

which is signed.

FAILURE TO ALLEGE EXHAUSTION AS TO ALL CLAIMS

Petitioner has not alleged exhaustion as to claim four. (See Pet. at 9.) The exhaustion

requirement is satisfied by providing the state courts with a “fair opportunity” to rule on

Petitioner’s constitutional claims. Anderson v. Harless, 459 U.S. 4, 6 (1982). In most instances,

a claim is exhausted once it is presented to a state’s highest court, either on direct appeal or

through state collateral proceedings.1

 See Sandgathe v. Maass, 314 F.3d 371, 376 (9th Cir.

2002). The constitutional claim raised in the federal proceedings must be the same as that raised

in the state proceedings. See Anderson, 459 U.S. at 6. Here, Petitioner indicates that his claim

that his sentence violates the U.S. Constitution (claim four) is unexhausted.

PETITIONER’S OPTIONS

To avoid the Court dismissing the petition on its own accord, Petitioner may choose one

of the following options.

i) First Option: Demonstrate Exhaustion

Petitioner may file further papers with this Court to demonstrate that he has in fact

exhausted the claim the Court has determined is likely unexhausted. If Petitioner chooses this

option, his papers are due no later than July 5, 2007. Respondent may file a reply by August

6, 2007.

/ / 

Case 3:07-cv-00846-J-NLS Document 3 Filed 05/17/07 Page 2 of 5
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

 28 U.S.C. § 2244 (d) provides:

(1) A 1-year period of limitation shall apply to an application for a writ of habeas corpus by a person in

custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court. The limitation period shall run from the latest of--

(A) the date on which the judgment became final by the conclusion of direct review or the

expiration of the time for seeking such review;

(B) the date on which the impediment to filing an application created by State action in violation

of the Constitution or laws of the United States is removed, if the applicant was prevented from filing by

such State action;

(C) the date on which the constitutional right asserted was initially recognized by the Supreme

Court, if the right has been newly recognized by the Supreme Court and made retroactively applicable to

cases on collateral review; or

(D) the date on which the factual predicate of the claim or claims presented could have been

discovered through the exercise of due diligence.

(2) The time during which a properly filed application for State post-conviction or other collateral review

with respect to the pertinent judgement or claim is pending shall not be counted toward any period of

limitation under this subsection.

-3- 07cv0846

ii) Second Option: Voluntarily Dismiss the Petition

Petitioner may move to voluntarily dismiss his entire federal petition and return to state

court to exhaust his unexhausted claims. Petitioner may then file a new federal petition

containing only exhausted claims. See Rose v. Lundy, 455 U.S. 509, 510, 520-21 (1982) (stating

that a petitioner who files a mixed petition may dismiss his petition to “return[] to state court to

exhaust his claims”). If Petitioner chooses this second option, he must file a pleading with this

Court no later than July 5, 2007. Respondent may file a reply by August 6, 2007. 

Petitioner is cautioned that any new federal petition must be filed before expiration of the

one-year statute of limitations. Ordinarily, a petitioner has one year from when his conviction

became final to file his federal petition, unless he can show that statutory or equitable “tolling”

applies. Duncan v. Walker, 533 U.S. 167, 176 (2001); 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d).2

 Filing a petition

in federal court does not stop the statute of limitations from running. Duncan, 533 U.S. at 181-

82; Frye v. Hickman, 273 F.3d 1144, 1145-46 (9th Cir. 2001); 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d).

iii) Third Option: Formally Abandon Unexhausted Claim

Petitioner may formally abandon his unexhausted claim and proceed with his exhausted

ones. See Rose, 455 U.S. at 510, 520-21 (stating that a petitioner who files a mixed petition may

“resubmit[] the habeas petition to present only exhausted claims”). If Petitioner chooses this

third option, he must file a pleading with this Court no later than July 5, 2007. Respondent may

file a reply by August 6, 2007.

/ / 

Case 3:07-cv-00846-J-NLS Document 3 Filed 05/17/07 Page 3 of 5
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

3

 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(2) provides that a claim presented in a second or successive habeas corpus application under

§ 2254 shall be dismissed unless: 

(A) the applicant shows that the claim relies on a new rule of constitutional law, made retroactive to cases

on collateral review by the Supreme Court, that was previously unavailable; or 

(B) (i) the factual predicate for the claim could not have been discovered previously through the exercise

of due diligence; and 

(ii) the facts underlying the claim, if proven and viewed in light of the evidence as a whole, would be

sufficient to establish by clear and convincing evidence that, but for constitutional error, no reasonable

factfinder would have found the applicant guilty of the underlying offense. 

-4- 07cv0846

Petitioner is cautioned that once he abandons his unexhausted claim, he may lose the

ability to ever raise it in federal court. See Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 488 (2000) (stating

that a court’s ruling on the merits of claims presented in a first § 2254 petition renders any later

petition successive); see also 28 U.S.C. § 2244 (a)-(b).3

iv) Fourth Option: File a Motion to Stay the Federal Proceedings

Petitioner may move to stay this federal proceeding while he returns to state court to

exhaust his unexhausted claims. See Jackson v. Roe, 425 F.3d 654, 660 (9th Cir. 2005)

(interpreting Rhines v. Weber, 544 U.S. 269 (2005) as permitting a district court to stay a mixed

petition while the petitioner returns to state court); Valerio v. Crawford, 306 F.3d. 742, 770-71

(9th Cir. 2002) (en banc); Calderon v. United States Dist. Ct. for the N. Dist. of Cal., 134 F.3d

981, 986-88 (9th Cir. 1998). If Petitioner chooses this fourth option, he must file a pleading with

this Court no later than July 5, 2007. Respondent may file a reply by August 6, 2007.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS Petitioner’s motion to proceed in forma

pauperis and DISMISSES the case without prejudice and with leave to amend. If Petitioner

wishes to proceed with this case, he must, no later than July 5, 2007: (1) choose one of the

options outlined above, AND (2) file a First Amended Petition that is signed.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: May 17, 2007

HON. NAPOLEON A. JONES, JR.

United States District Judge

cc: All parties

Case 3:07-cv-00846-J-NLS Document 3 Filed 05/17/07 Page 4 of 5
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

-5- 07cv0846

Case 3:07-cv-00846-J-NLS Document 3 Filed 05/17/07 Page 5 of 5