Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_14-cv-02303/USCOURTS-casd-3_14-cv-02303-0/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

YONIS ABDULKADIR AFRAH, Civil No. 14-cv-02303-BAS(NLS)

Petitioner,

ORDER DISMISSING CASE 

v. WITHOUT PREJUDICE

DHANI SIDHU, et al.,

Respondents.

Petitioner, a United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement detainee,

proceeding pro se, has filed a Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§ 2254, challenging a state court conviction. The Petition issubject to dismissal because

Petitioner has failed to satisfy the filing fee requirement, and because the Petition

contains no claims for relief.

 FILING FEE REQUIREMENT

Petitioner has neither paid the $5.00 filing fee nor filed a request 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; CivLR 3.2. If Petitioner

wishes to proceed with this case, he must submit, no later than December 1, 2014, a

-1- 14cv2303

Case 3:14-cv-02303-BAS-NLS Document 2 Filed 10/03/14 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

copy of this Order with the $5.00 fee or with adequate proof of his inability to pay the

fee. 

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 also 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, in the area of the form petition where Petitioner is directed to list the

grounds for relief, he simply states “see attach.” (See Pet. at 6-9.) The only attachment

to the Petition is another petition form which also states “see attach” in the place where

the grounds for relief are required to be stated. (See Pet. at 21-24.) Thus, the Petition

does not contain any claims for relief. 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(a). 

Further, the Court cautions Petitioner that he must exhaust state judicial remedies

before bringing his claims via federal habeas. 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

-2- 14cv2303

Case 3:14-cv-02303-BAS-NLS Document 2 Filed 10/03/14 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

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; O’Sullivan v. Boerckel, 526 U.S. 838, 845 (1999). 

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, theymust 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). If Petitioner has

raised his claims in the California Supreme Court he must so specify. The burden of

proving that a claimhas been exhausted lies with the petitioner. Cartwright v. Cupp, 650

F.2d 1103, 1104 (9th Cir. 1981).

Finally, 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

wasinitially 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

-3- 14cv2303

Case 3:14-cv-02303-BAS-NLS Document 2 Filed 10/03/14 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

or claims presented could have been discovered through the

exercise of due diligence.

28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1)(A)-(D).

The statute of limitations does not run while a “properly filed application for State

post-conviction or other collateralreview with respect to the pertinent judgment or claim

is pending.” 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(2). A petitioner who “unreasonably delays” in filing

a state habeas petition is not “granted the benefit of statutory tolling because the petition

would not be considered pending, or properly filed, within the meaning of § 2244(d)(2).” 

Nedds v. Calderon, 678 F.3d 777, 780 (9th Cir. 2012) (internal citations and quotations

omitted). 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 appearsfrom 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 satisfied the filing fee

requirement and has not stated any grounds for relief.

CONCLUSION

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

because Petitioner has failed to satisfy filing fee requirements and failed to state a

cognizable federal claim. To have this case reopened, Petitioner must, no later than

December 1, 2014, pay the $5.00 filing fee or submit adequate proof of his inability to

pay the fee, and file a First Amended Petition that cures the pleading deficiencies set

forth above. The Clerk of Court shall send Petitioner a blank First Amended Petition

-4- 14cv2303

Case 3:14-cv-02303-BAS-NLS Document 2 Filed 10/03/14 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

form and a blank Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis form along with a copy of this

Order.

Further, Petitioner is advised that if he has not submitted a First Amended Petition

stating a cognizable federal claim(s) and alleging exhaustion of his state court remedies

with regard to that claim(s) before December 1, 2014, he will have to start over by filing

a completely new habeas petition in this Court. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: October 1, 2014

-5- 14cv2303

Case 3:14-cv-02303-BAS-NLS Document 2 Filed 10/03/14 Page 5 of 5