Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-03918/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-03918-0/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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOHN OLAGUES, 

Petitioner,

v.

CHARLES FOTI, ATTORNEY GENERAL

OF LOUISIANA, 

Respondent. /

No. C 07-3918 JSW (PR)

ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH

LEAVE TO AMEND

Petitioner, a probationer in Louisiana, after a conviction in Marin County,

California, filed a habeas corpus petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging the

constitutional validity of his state conviction in the United States District Court for the

Eastern District of Louisiana. The petition was transferred to this Court on July 31, 2007. 

Petitioner apparently paid the $5.00 filing fee in the Eastern District of Louisiana. 

Petitioner has named as Respondent the Attorney General of Louisiana. However,

this is not the proper respondent. The proper respondent in a federal habeas corpus

petition is ordinarily the petitioner's immediate custodian. Brittingham v. United States,

982 F.2d 378, 379 (9th Cir. 1992). A custodian “‘is the person having a day-to-day

control over the prisoner. That person is the only one who can produce ‘the body’ of the

petitioner.’” Id. (quoting Guerra v. Meese, 786 F.2d 414, 416 (D.C. Cir. 1986)). “This

person typically is the warden of the facility in which the petitioner is incarcerated.” 

Stanley v. California Supreme Court, 21 F.3d 359, 360 (9th Cir. 1994). In general, the

proper respondent will depend on the given situations. Where a petitioner is in physical

Case 3:07-cv-03918-JSW Document 3 Filed 11/27/07 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

2

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).” Rule 2(b) of the Rules Governing Habeas Corpus Cases Under Section § 2254

advisory committee's note. Where the 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.” Ortiz-Sandoval v. Gomez, 81

F.3d 891, 896 (9th Cir. 1996). Failure to name Petitioner's custodian as a Respondent

deprives federal courts of personal jurisdiction. Id. However, a petitioner ordinarily

should be given leave to amend his petition to name the correct party as respondent. See

id. Petitioner is granted leave to amend to name the proper Respondent in this matter and

must do so within thirty days from the date of this order. 

The petition is now before the court for review pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §2243 and

Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. The petition contain claims regarding

the trial court’s lack of subject matter jurisdiction and territorial jurisdiction, the state’s

failure to prove an element of the crime, venue, the court’s refusal to allow a challenge to

the custody order, assumption of evidence not proven, and admission of hearsay

evidence. However, in the petition, Petitioner fails to allege that his federal constitutional

rights were violated by the above errors, except that of the venue challenge, where he

alleges the violation of his Sixth Amendment rights. 

Petitioner has attached many documents to the petition, but he has not attached his

appellate briefs from the state appellate court, so this Court is unable to determine

whether his claims are purely based on state law, or whether Petitioner presented federal

claims in the state courts, but has failed to name them as such here. However, because

only federal claims that have been previously exhausted in the state courts may be

considered, Petitioner will be provided with an opportunity to file an amended petition,

identifying which of his claims allege the violation of his federal constitutional rights. 

Case 3:07-cv-03918-JSW Document 3 Filed 11/27/07 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

3

DISCUSSION

A. Standard of Review

This court may entertain a petition for 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); Rose v. Hodges, 423 U.S. 19, 21 (1975). 

A district court shall "award the writ or issue an order directing the respondent to

show cause why the writ should not be granted, unless it appears from the application that

the applicant or person detained is not entitled thereto." 28 U.S.C. § 2243. Summary

dismissal is appropriate only where the allegations in the petition are vague or conclusory,

palpably incredible, or patently frivolous or false. See Hendricks v. Vasquez, 908 F.2d

490, 491 (9th Cir. 1990) (quoting Blackledge v. Allison, 431 U.S. 63, 75-76 (1977)). 

B. Petitioner’s Claims

Petitioner’s federal habeas petition contains six separate claims. However, the

petition has a critical defect: the petition does not mention any violation of a federal right

with regard to five of the six claims he wishes to raise. A person in custody pursuant to

the judgment of a state court can obtain a federal writ of habeas corpus 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). In other words, a writ of habeas corpus is available

under § 2254(a) "only on the basis of some transgression of federal law binding on the

state courts." Middleton v. Cupp, 768 F.2d 1083, 1085 (9th Cir. 1985) (citing Engle v.

Isaac, 456 U.S. 107, 119 (1982)), cert. denied, 478 U.S. 1021 (1986). It is unavailable

for violations of state law or for alleged error in the interpretation or application of state

law. See Estelle v. McGuire, 502 U.S. 62, 67-68 (1991); Engle, 456 U.S. at 119; Peltier

v. Wright, 15 F.3d 860, 861-62 (9th Cir. 1994). Petitioner’s petition must be dismissed

for failure to state a cognizable claim for federal habeas relief as to five of the six claims

raised. However, he will be given leave to amend to cure this defect.

Case 3:07-cv-03918-JSW Document 3 Filed 11/27/07 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

4

CONCLUSION 

For the foregoing reasons and for good cause shown, this action is dismissed with

leave to file an amended petition within thirty days of the date of this order in which

Petitioner names the proper Respondent and presents only claims for violations of his

rights under the laws, treaties, or Constitution of the United States. Each and every such

claim must have been presented to the California Supreme Court before it may be

asserted in a federal habeas action. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b),(c); Granberry v. Greer, 481

U.S. 129, 133-34 (1987). The amended petition must contain the caption and civil case

number used in this order and the words AMENDED PETITION on the first page. 

Failure to file an amended petition by the deadline will result in dismissal of all claims in

the petition, except claim three, which alleges the violation of a federal right. If Petitioner

only wishes to raise the venue claim here, he need not file an amended petition and the

Court will proceed on that claim alone, but he must notify the Court of the proper

Respondent within thirty days. 

It is Petitioner's responsibility to prosecute this case. He must keep the Court

informed of any change of address by filing a separate paper with the clerk headed

“Notice of Change of Address.” He must comply with any orders of the Court within the

time allowed, or ask for an extension of that time. Failure to do so may result in the

dismissal of this action for failure to prosecute pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil

Procedure 41(b). See Martinez v. Johnson, 104 F.3d 769, 772 (5th Cir. 1997) (Rule 41(b)

applicable in habeas cases). 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: November 27, 2007

 

JEFFREY S. WHITE

United States District Judge

Case 3:07-cv-03918-JSW Document 3 Filed 11/27/07 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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOHN OLAGUES,

Plaintiff,

 v.

CHARLES FOTI et al,

Defendant. /

Case Number: CV07-03918 JSW 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am an employee in the Office of the Clerk, U.S. District

Court, Northern District of California.

That on November 27, 2007, I SERVED a true and correct copy(ies) of the attached, by placing

said copy(ies) in a postage paid envelope addressed to the person(s) hereinafter listed, by

depositing said envelope in the U.S. Mail, or by placing said copy(ies) into an inter-office

delivery receptacle located in the Clerk's office.

John Olagues

413 Sauve Road

River Ridge, LA 70123

Dated: November 27, 2007

Richard W. Wieking, Clerk

By: Jennifer Ottolini, Deputy Clerk

Case 3:07-cv-03918-JSW Document 3 Filed 11/27/07 Page 5 of 5