Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_07-cv-02325/USCOURTS-casd-3_07-cv-02325-0/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

K:\COMMON\EVERYONE\_EFILE-PROSE\J\07cv2325-dismiss.wpd, 288 -1-

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JAMES LYNN HINES, Civil No. 07-2325 J (BLM)

Petitioner,

ORDER DISMISSING CASE 

v. WITHOUT PREJUDICE

D. CARILLO, Associate Warden,

Respondent.

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

Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254.

FAILURE TO SATISFY FILING FEE REQUIREMENT

 Petitioner has failed to pay the $5.00 filing fee and has failed to move to proceed in

forma pauperis. Because this Court cannot proceed until Petitioner has either paid the $5.00

filing fee or qualified to proceed in forma pauperis, the Court DISMISSES the case without

prejudice. See Rule 3(a), 28 U.S.C. foll. § 2254. If Petitioner wishes to proceed with this case,

he must submit, no later than March 7, 2008, a copy of this Order with the $5.00 fee or with

adequate proof of his inability to pay the fee. 

FAILURE TO NAME A PROPER RESPONDENT

Further, 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

Case 3:07-cv-02325-J-BLM Document 2 Filed 02/08/08 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:\COMMON\EVERYONE\_EFILE-PROSE\J\07cv2325-dismiss.wpd, 288 -2-

2(a), 28 U.S.C. foll. § 2254). “The ‘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).

Here, Petitioner incorrectly named “D. Carillo” as Respondent. In order for this Court

to entertain the Petition filed in this action, Petitioner, who is confined at Arizona State Prison

Camp in Florence, Arizona, must name the warden currently in charge of the correctional facility

in which Petitioner is presently confined or the Secretary of the Department of Corrections.

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

FAILURE TO ALLEGE EXHAUSTION OF STATE COURT 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). 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).

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

Supreme Court. In fact, he specifically indicates he has a petition still pending before the state

supreme court. (See Pet. at 4, 7-9.) If Petitioner has raised his claims in the California Supreme

Court he must so specify. “The burden of proving that a claim has been exhausted lies with the

petitioner.” Matthews v. Evatt, 105 F.3d 907, 911 (4th Cir. 1997); see Breard v. Pruett, 134 F.3d

Case 3:07-cv-02325-J-BLM Document 2 Filed 02/08/08 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:\COMMON\EVERYONE\_EFILE-PROSE\J\07cv2325-dismiss.wpd, 288 -3-

615, 619 (4th Cir. 1998); Lambert v. Blackwell, 134 F.3d 506, 513 (3d Cir. 1997); Oyler v.

Allenbrand, 23 F.3d 292, 300 (10th Cir. 1994); Rust v. Zent, 17 F.3d 155, 160 (6th Cir. 1994).

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:

(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.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.

Case 3:07-cv-02325-J-BLM Document 2 Filed 02/08/08 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:\COMMON\EVERYONE\_EFILE-PROSE\J\07cv2325-dismiss.wpd, 288 -4-

CONCLUSION

The Petition is DISMISSED for failure to satisfy the filing fee requirement, failure to

name a proper respondent, and failure to allege exhaustion of state judicial remedies. In order

to have this case reopened, Petitioner must, by March 7, 2008, (1) either pay the filing fee or

provide adequate proof of his inability to pay and (2) file a First Amended Petition curing the

pleading deficiencies discussed above. For Petitioner’s convenience, the Clerk of Court shall

attach to this Order, a blank Southern District of California In Forma Pauperis

Application to Petitioner and a blank First Amended Petition form.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: February 8, 2008

HON. NAPOLEON A. JONES, JR.

United States District Judge

Case 3:07-cv-02325-J-BLM Document 2 Filed 02/08/08 Page 4 of 4