Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_15-cv-02892/USCOURTS-casd-3_15-cv-02892-0/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

15CV2892 BEN (MDD)

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

UBALDO PLENTYWOUNDS,

Petitioner,

v.

SAN DIEGO SUPERIOR COURT,

Respondent.

Case No.: 15CV2892 BEN (MDD)

ORDER: (1) GRANTING MOTION 

TO PROCEED IN FORMA 

PAUPERIS; and (2) DISMISSING 

CASE WITHOUT PREJUDICE AND 

WITH LEAVE TO AMEND

Petitioner, a state prisoner, has filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant 

to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 together with a motion to proceed in forma pauperis. 

MOTION TO PROCEED IN FORM 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 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.

FAILURE TO NAME PROPER RESPONDENT

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 

Case 3:15-cv-02892-BEN-MDD Document 3 Filed 01/11/16 Page 1 of 5
2

15CV2892 BEN (MDD)

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

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).

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. “Both the warden 

of a California prison and the Director of Corrections for California have the power to 

produce the prisoner.” Ortiz-Sandoval, 81 F.3d at 895.

Here, Petitioner has incorrectly named “San Diego Superior Court,” as 

Respondent. In order for this Court to entertain the Petition filed in this action, Petitioner 

must name the warden in charge of the state correctional facility in which Petitioner is 

presently confined or the Director of the California Department of Corrections. 

Brittingham v. United States, 982 F.2d 378, 379 (9th Cir. 1992) (per curiam). 

FAILURE TO ALLEGE EXHAUSTION OF STATE JUDICIAL REMEDIES

Further, habeas petitioners who wish to challenge either their state court conviction 

or the length of their confinement in state prison, must first exhaust state judicial 

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

Case 3:15-cv-02892-BEN-MDD Document 3 Filed 01/11/16 Page 2 of 5
3

15CV2892 BEN (MDD)

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

Ordinarily, to satisfy the exhaustion requirement, a petitioner must “‘fairly present[]’ his 

federal claim to the highest state court with jurisdiction to consider it, or . . . 

demonstrate[] that no state remedy remains available.” Johnson v. Zenon, 88 F.3d 828, 

829 (9th Cir. 1996) (citations omitted). Moreover, to properly exhaust state court 

remedies a petitioner must allege, in state court, how one or more of his or her federal 

rights have been violated. For example, “[i]f a habeas petitioner wishes to claim that an 

evidentiary ruling at a state court trial denied him [or her] the due process of law 

guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment, he [or she] must say so, not only in federal 

court, but in state court.” See Duncan v. Henry, 513 U.S. 364, 365-66 (1995)(emphasis 

added).

Nowhere on the Petition does Petitioner allege that he raised his claims in the 

California Supreme Court. If Petitioner has raised his claims in the California Supreme 

Court he must so specify. 

Further, the Court cautions Petitioner that under the Antiterrorism and Effective 

Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA) 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

/ / /

/ / /

Case 3:15-cv-02892-BEN-MDD Document 3 Filed 01/11/16 Page 3 of 5
4

15CV2892 BEN (MDD)

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.A. § 2244(d)(1)(A)-(D) (West Supp. 2002).

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); 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).

Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 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 appears plain from the Petition that Petitioner is not 

presently entitled to federal habeas relief because he has not alleged exhaustion of state 

court remedies.

FAILURE TO STATE A COGNIZABLE FEDERAL CLAIM

Upon review of the Petition, it also appears to the Court that a Petition for Writ of 

Habeas Corpus brought pursuant to § 2254 is not the proper vehicle for the claims 

Petitioner presents. Petitioner claims that “arresting officers ‘under color of law’ 

impersonated an employee of Chase Bank . . . [and] without a warrant conducted a search 

of my personal safety deposit box . . . ” and alleges that Chase Bank colluded to impede 

my 14th Amendment Due Process rights with an outside agency. . . .” (Pet. at 3-4.) 

Petitioner’s claims are not cognizable on habeas because it they do not challenge the 

constitutional validity or duration of confinement. See 28 U.S.C. 2254(a); Preiser v. 

Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 500 (1973); Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 480-85 (1994). 

/ / /

Case 3:15-cv-02892-BEN-MDD Document 3 Filed 01/11/16 Page 4 of 5
5

15CV2892 BEN (MDD)

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

“Section 2254 applies only to collateral attacks on state court judgments.” McGuire v. 

Blubaum, 376 F. Supp. 284, 285 (D. Ariz. 1974).

Challenges to the fact or duration of confinement are brought by petition for a writ 

of habeas corpus, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. See Preiser, 411 U.S. at 488-500. When 

a state prisoner is challenging the very fact or duration of his physical imprisonment, and 

the relief he seeks is a determination that he is entitled to immediate release or a speedier 

release from that imprisonment, his sole federal remedy is a writ of habeas corpus. Id. at 

500. In no way does Petitioner claim his state court conviction violates the Constitution 

or laws or treaties of the United States. Thus, Petitioner has not stated a cognizable 

federal habeas corpus claim.

FAILURE TO SIGN 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. 

CONCLUSION

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

forma pauperis, and DISMISSES this case without prejudice and with leave to amend. 

To proceed with this case, Petitioner must, no later than March 18, 2016, file a First 

Amended Petition that cures the pleading deficiencies outlined in this Order. 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: January 11, 2016

Case 3:15-cv-02892-BEN-MDD Document 3 Filed 01/11/16 Page 5 of 5