Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_15-cv-00525/USCOURTS-casd-3_15-cv-00525-0/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JAMES BRADLEY FATCHETT, Civil No. 15-0525 LAB (JLB)

Petitioner,

ORDER DISMISSING CASE

WITHOUT PREJUDICE AND

WITH LEAVE TO AMEND

v.

STATE OF CALIFORNIA, 

Respondent.

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

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254.

PETITIONER IS NOT IN STATE CUSTODY

Upon review of the documents filed in this case, it appears that Petitioner is not in

the custody of the State of California, nor was he when he filed the Petition because it

lists Petitioner’s address as “299 17th Street, San Diego, CA 92101.” Furthermore,

Petitioner does not allege he was on parole or otherwise in constructive custody.

“Subject matter jurisdiction under the federal habeas corpus statute, 28 U.S.C.

§ 2254(a), is limited to those persons ‘in custody pursuant to the judgment of a State.’” 

Brock v. Weston, 31 F.3d 887, 889 (9th Cir. 1994); see also 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c)(3). It

is a jurisdictional requirement that, at the time a habeas petition is filed, “the habeas

petitioner be ‘in custody’ under the conviction or sentence under attack.” Maleng v.

/ / /

I:\Everyone\_EFILE-PROSE\LAB\15cv0525_dismiss.wpd, 31615 -1- 15cv0525

Case 3:15-cv-00525-LAB-JLB Document 2 Filed 03/16/15 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

Cook, 490 U.S. 488, 490-91 (1989) (citing 28 U.S.C. §§ 2241(c)(3) & 2254(a)); see

Carafas v. LaVallee, 391 U.S. 234, 238 (1968)). 

Rule 4 of the Rules Governing § 2254 Cases provides for summary dismissal of

a habeas petition “[i]f it plainly appears from the face of the petition and any exhibits

annexed to it that the petitioner is not entitled to relief in the district court. . . .” Rule 4,

28 U.S.C. foll. § 2254. Here, it is plain from the Petition that Petitioner is not presently

entitled to federal habeas relief because he was not in the custody of the State of

California when he filed his § 2254 Petition in this Court. 

FAILURE TO NAME PROPER RESPONDENT

If Petitioner is in custody, on parole, or on probation, review of the Petition reveals

that Petitioner has failed to name a proper respondent. On federal habeas, a state prisoner

must name the state officer having custody of him as the respondent. Ortiz-Sandoval v.

Gomez, 81 F.3d 891, 894 (9th Cir. 1996) (citing Rule 2(a), 28 U.S.C. foll. § 2254). 

Federal courts lack personal jurisdiction when a habeas petition fails to name a proper

respondent. See id.

The warden is the typical respondent. However, “the rules following section 2254

do not specify the warden.” Id. “[T]he ‘state officer having custody’ may be ‘either the

warden of the institution in which the petitioner is incarcerated . . . or the chief officer in

charge of state penal institutions.’” Id. (quoting Rule 2(a), 28 U.S.C. foll. § 2254

advisory committee’s note). If “a petitioner is in custody due to the state action he is

challenging, ‘[t]he named respondent shall be the state officer who has official custody

of the petitioner (for example, the warden of the prison).’” Id. (quoting Rule 2, 28 U.S.C.

foll. § 2254 advisory committee’s note). However, if a “petitioner is on probation or

parole, he may name his probation or parole officer ‘and the official in charge of the

parole or probation agency, or the state correctional agency, as appropriate.’” Id.

(quoting Rule 2, 28 U.S.C. foll. § 2254 advisory committee’s note). In some cases, a

petitioner may name the state attorney general. Id.

/ / /

I:\Everyone\_EFILE-PROSE\LAB\15cv0525_dismiss.wpd, 31615 -2- 15cv0525

Case 3:15-cv-00525-LAB-JLB Document 2 Filed 03/16/15 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

A long standing rule in the Ninth Circuit holds “that a petitioner may not seek [a

writ of] habeas corpus against the State under . . . [whose] authority . . . the petitioner is

in custody. The actual person who is [the] custodian [of the petitioner] must be the

respondent.” Ashley v. Washington, 394 F.2d 125, 126 (9th Cir. 1968). This requirement

exists because a writ of habeas corpus acts upon the custodian of the state prisoner, the

person who will produce “the body” if directed to do so by the Court. H e r e ,

Petitioner has incorrectly named “State of California,” as Respondent. In order for this

Court to entertain the Petition filed in this action, Petitioner must name the person who

will produce “the body” if directed to do so by the Court. 

FAILURE TO STATE A COGNIZABLE FEDERAL CLAIM 

Additionally, in accordance with Rule 4 of the rules governing § 2254 cases,

Petitioner has failed to allege that his state court conviction or sentence violates the

Constitution of the United States.

Title 28, United States Code, § 2254(a), sets forth the following scope of review

for federal habeas corpus claims:

The Supreme Court, a Justice thereof, a circuit judge, or a district court shall entertain an application for a writ of habeas corpus in behalf of a person in custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court only on the ground that he

is in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United

States.

28 U.S.C. § 2254(a) (emphasis added). See Hernandez v. Ylst, 930 F.2d 714, 719 (9th

Cir. 1991); Mannhalt v. Reed, 847 F.2d 576, 579 (9th Cir. 1988); Kealohapauole v.

Shimoda, 800 F.2d 1463, 1464-65 (9th Cir. 1986). Thus, to present a cognizable federal

habeas corpus claim under § 2254, a state prisoner must allege both that he is in custody

pursuant to a “judgment of a State court,” and that he is in custody in “violation of the

Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.” See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a). 

Here, Petitioner makes various claims regarding the Department of Homeland

Security, the San Diego Police, and alleges he is employed by the CIA, among other

things. (See Pet. at 1-5.) In no way does Petitioner claim he is “in custody in violation

of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254.

I:\Everyone\_EFILE-PROSE\LAB\15cv0525_dismiss.wpd, 31615 -3- 15cv0525

Case 3:15-cv-00525-LAB-JLB Document 2 Filed 03/16/15 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

Further, the Court notes that Petitioner cannot simply amend his Petition to state

a federal habeas claim and then refile the amended petition in this case. He must exhaust

state judicial remedies before bringing his claims via federal habeas. State prisoners who

wish to challenge their state court conviction must first exhaust state judicial remedies. 

28 U.S.C. § 2254(b), (c); Granberry v. Greer, 481 U.S. 129, 133-34 (1987). To exhaust

state judicial remedies, a California state prisoner must present the California Supreme

Court with a fair opportunity to rule on the merits of every issue raised in his or her

federal habeas petition. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b), (c); Granberry, 481 U.S. at 133-34. 

Moreover, to properly exhaust state court judicial remedies a petitioner must allege, in

state court, how one or more of his or her federal rights have been violated. The Supreme

Court in Duncan v. Henry, 513 U.S. 364 (1995) reasoned: “If state courts are to be given

the opportunity to correct alleged violations of prisoners’ federal rights, they must surely

be alerted to the fact that the prisoners are asserting claims under the United States

Constitution.” Id. at 365-66 (emphasis added). For example, “[i]f a habeas petitioner

wishes to claim that an evidentiary ruling at a state court trial denied him the due process

of law guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment, he must say so, not only in federal

court, but in state court.” Id. (emphasis added).

Additionally, the Court cautions Petitioner that under the Antiterrorism and

Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (Act), signed into law on April 24, 1996, a one-year

period of limitation applies to a petition for a writ of habeas corpus by a person in

custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court. The limitation period runs 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

I:\Everyone\_EFILE-PROSE\LAB\15cv0525_dismiss.wpd, 31615 -4- 15cv0525

Case 3:15-cv-00525-LAB-JLB Document 2 Filed 03/16/15 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

(D) the date on which the factual predicate of the claim or claims presented could have been discovered through the exercise of due diligence.

28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1)(A)-(D) (West Supp. 2002).

The Court also notes that the statute of limitations does not run while a properly

filed state habeas corpus petition is pending. 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(2); see Nino v. Galaza,

183 F.3d 1003, 1006 (9th Cir. 1999), cert. denied, 529 U.S. 1104 (2000). But see Artuz

v. Bennett, 531 U.S. 4, 8 (2000) (holding that “an application is ‘properly filed’ when its

delivery and acceptance [by the appropriate court officer for placement into the record]

are in compliance with the applicable laws and rules governing filings.”). However,

absent some other basis for tolling, the statute of limitations does run while a federal

habeas petition is pending. Duncan v. Walker, 533 U.S. 167, 181-82 (2001).

FAILURE TO USE PROPER FORM

Finally, a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus must be submitted in accordance with

the Local Rules of the United States District Court for the Southern District of California. 

See Rule 2(c), 28 U.S.C. foll. § 2254. In order to comply with the Local Rules, the

petition must be submitted upon a court-approved form and in accordance with the

instructions approved by the Court. Presently, Petitioner has submitted an application for

writ of habeas corpus on a non-approved form. 

CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, the Court DISMISSES this action without prejudice and

with leave to amend. To have this case reopened, Petitioner must, no later than May 18,

2015, file a First Amended Petition that cures the pleading deficiencies set forth above. 

The Clerk of Court is directed to mail Petitioner a blank First Amended Petition form

together with a copy of this Order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: March 12, 2015

HONORABLE LARRY ALAN BURNS

United States District Judge

I:\Everyone\_EFILE-PROSE\LAB\15cv0525_dismiss.wpd, 31615 -5- 15cv0525

Case 3:15-cv-00525-LAB-JLB Document 2 Filed 03/16/15 Page 5 of 5