Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_08-cv-01185/USCOURTS-casd-3_08-cv-01185-1/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

K :\C O M M O N \E V E R Y O N E \_EFILE-PRO SE\L \08cv1185-d ism iss 2 .w pd, 998 -1- 08cv1185

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LEONARDO GARCIA MILLAN, Civil No. 08-1185 L (PCL)

Petitioner,

ORDER DISMISSING CASE 

v. WITHOUT PREJUDICE

HERNANDEZ, Warden,

Respondent.

On July 2, 2008, Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed a Petition for a

Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. On July 8, 2008, the Court dismissed the

action because Petitioner had failed to satisfy the filing fee requirement and had failed to allege

exhaustion of state judicial remedies. The Court notified Petitioner that, in order to have his case

reopened, he must, by September 8, 2008, (1) pay the filing fee or provide adequate proof of his

inability to pay and (2) file a First Amended Petition curing the pleading deficiencies outlined

in the July 8, 2008 Order. Petitioner was also cautioned that, if he was unable to allege

exhaustion of state judicial remedies by September 8, 2008, his case would be dismissed without

leave to amend and that and he would have to start over by filing a new case under a new case

number. 

/ / /

/ / /

Case 3:08-cv-01185-L-PCL Document 5 Filed 09/09/08 Page 1 of 4
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

K :\C O M M O N \E V E R Y O N E \_EFILE-PRO SE\L \08cv1185-d ism iss 2 .w pd, 998 -2- 08cv1185

On August 28, 2008, Petitioner paid the filing fee and filed a First Amended Petition.

Review of the First Amended Petition reveals that Petitioner has again failed to allege

exhaustion of state court remedies. As discussed in this Court’s July 8, 2008 Order, 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). 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. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b),

(c); Granberry, 481 U.S. at 133-34. 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. 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 [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.” Id. at 366 (emphasis added).

Here, Petitioner has not indicated that he has exhausted state judicial remedies. Nowhere

in the Petition does Petitioner allege that he raised his claims in the California Supreme Court.

In fact, Petitioner specifically states that he has not raised these claims before the state supreme

court. (Pet. at 6-9.) If Petitioner has raised his claims in the California Supreme Court he must

so specify. The burden of pleading that a claim has been exhausted lies with the petitioner.

Cartwright v. Cupp, 650 F.2d 1103, 1104 (9th Cir. 1981).

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

Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA) a one-year period of limitation shall apply 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 shall run from the latest of:

/ / /

Case 3:08-cv-01185-L-PCL Document 5 Filed 09/09/08 Page 2 of 4
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

K :\C O M M O N \E V E R Y O N E \_EFILE-PRO SE\L \08cv1185-d ism iss 2 .w pd, 998 -3- 08cv1185

(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.

28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1)(A)-(D) (West 2006).

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 attached exhibits 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. Further, it is now clear that

Petitioner is unable to allege exhaustion of his state court remedies at this time. Therefore, the

First Amended Petition is DISMISSED without further leave to amend. However, the dismissal

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

Case 3:08-cv-01185-L-PCL Document 5 Filed 09/09/08 Page 3 of 4
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

K :\C O M M O N \E V E R Y O N E \_EFILE-PRO SE\L \08cv1185-d ism iss 2 .w pd, 998 -4- 08cv1185

is without prejudice to Petitioner to present his claims in a separate habeas petition, which will

be given a new civil case number, if and when he exhausts his state court remedies.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the Court DISMISSES this case without prejudice and without

further leave to amend. If Petitioner wishes to proceed with this claims, he may file a new

habeas petition, which will be given a new civil case number, if and when he exhausts his state

court remedies.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: September 9, 2008

M. James Lorenz

United States District Court Judge

Case 3:08-cv-01185-L-PCL Document 5 Filed 09/09/08 Page 4 of 4