Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_15-cv-02380/USCOURTS-casd-3_15-cv-02380-0/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

CHRISTOPHER PHILLIP ROTH, Civil

No.

15cv2380-GPC (MDD)

Petitioner,

ORDER GRANTING

APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN

FORMA PAUPERIS AND

DISMISSING PETITION

WITHOUT PREJUDICE

v.

DAVID DAVY, Warden,

Respondent.

Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has submitted a Petition for a Writ

of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, together with a request to proceed in

forma pauperis. Although the Court grants Petitioner leave to proceed in forma pauperis,

the Petition is subject to dismissal because Petitioner has not alleged exhaustion of his

state court remedies. 

MOTION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS

Petitioner has no funds 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 as a poor person without being

required to prepay fees or costs and without being required to post security. 

/ / / 

-1- 15cv2380

Case 3:15-cv-02380-GPC-MDD Document 3 Filed 10/22/15 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

FAILURE TO ALLEGE EXHAUSTION OF STATE JUDICIAL REMEDIES

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’ federalrights, 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).

Petitioner indicates that although he presented his claims to the state appellate

court on direct appeal, he did not seek review in the California Supreme Court. (See Pet.

at 5.) 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. 

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:

(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

-2- 15cv2380

Case 3:15-cv-02380-GPC-MDD Document 3 Filed 10/22/15 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

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

or claims presented could have been discovered through the

exercise of due diligence.

28 U.S.C.A. § 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 appearsfromthe 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.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Petitioner’s Motion to proceed in forma pauperis is GRANTED and the Petition

is DISMISSED without prejudice for failure to exhaust state court remedies. If

Petitioner wishes to pursue this action, he must, on or before December 21, 2015, file

a First Amended Petition which alleges exhaustion of state court remedies as to all

claims presented. Petitioner is advised that if he has not submitted a First Amended

Petition alleging exhaustion of his state court remedies before December 21, 2015, he

-3- 15cv2380

Case 3:15-cv-02380-GPC-MDD Document 3 Filed 10/22/15 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

will have to start over by filing a completely new habeas petition in this Court which will

be given a new civil case number. See In re Turner, 101 F.3d 1323, 1323-24 (9th Cir.

1997). The Clerk of Court shall send a blank Southern District of California amended

petition form to Petitioner along with a copy of this Order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: October 22, 2015

HON. GONZALO P. CURIEL

United States District Judge

Copies to: ALL PARTIES

-4- 15cv2380

Case 3:15-cv-02380-GPC-MDD Document 3 Filed 10/22/15 Page 4 of 4