Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00595/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00595-0/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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LAURIN CARLVIN,

Petitioner,

v.

CALIFORNIA DEPT. OF CORRECTIONS,

et. al.,

Respondents.

 /

CV F 05-0595 REC SMS HC

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY PETITION

SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED

[Doc. 1]

Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas corpus

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 

Petitioner filed the instant petition for writ of habeas corpus on May 3, 2005. Rule 4 of

the Rules Governing § 2254 Cases requires the Court to make a preliminary review of each

Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus. The Court must dismiss a Petition "[i]f it plainly appears

from the face of the petition . . . that the petitioner is not entitled to relief in the district court." 

Rule 4 of the Rules Governing 2254 Cases; see, also, Hendricks v. Vasquez, 908 F.2d 490 (9th

Cir. 1990).

DISCUSSION

A. Proper Respondent

A petitioner seeking habeas corpus relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 must name the state

officer having custody of him as the respondent to the petition. Rule 2 (a) of the Rules

Governing § 2254 Cases; Ortiz-Sandoval v. Gomez, 81 F.3d 891, 894 (9th Cir. 1996); Stanley v.

Case 1:05-cv-00595-REC -SMS Document 6 Filed 05/24/05 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

California Supreme Court, 21 F.3d 359, 360 (9th Cir. 1994). Normally, the person having

custody of an incarcerated petitioner is the warden of the prison in which the petitioner is

incarcerated because the warden has "day-to-day control over" the petitioner. Brittingham v.

United States, 982 F.2d 378, 379 (9th Cir. 1992); see, also, Stanley v. California Supreme Court,

21 F.3d 359, 360 (9th Cir. 1994). However, the chief officer in charge of state penal institutions

is also appropriate. Ortiz, 81 F.3d at 894; Stanley, 21 F.3d at 360. Where a petitioner is on

probation or parole, the proper respondent is his probation or parole officer and the official in

charge of the parole or probation agency or state correctional agency. Id. 

In this case, petitioner names the California Department of Corrections and Warden of

Corcoran State Prison as Respondents. Although Petitioner is currently in the custody of the

California Department of Corrections, the Department cannot be considered the person having

day-to-day control over Petitioner. Further, Petitioner merely names the “Warden” of the prison,

without specifically naming the individual Warden. 

Petitioner’s failure to name a proper respondent requires dismissal of his habeas petition

for lack of jurisdiction. Stanley, 21 F.3d at 360; Olson v. California Adult Auth., 423 F.2d 1326,

1326 (9th Cir. 1970); see, also, Billiteri v. United States Bd. Of Parole, 541 F.2d 938, 948 (2nd

Cir. 1976). However, in this case, the Court will give petitioner the opportunity to cure his defect

by amending the petition to name a proper respondent. See, West v. Louisiana, 478 F.2d 1026,

1029 (5th Cir.1973), vacated in part on other grounds, 510 F.2d 363 (5th Cir.1975) (en banc)

(allowing petitioner to amend petition to name proper respondent); Ashley v. State of

Washington, 394 F.2d 125 (9th Cir. 1968) (same).

B. Exhaustion

A petitioner who is in state custody and wishes to collaterally challenge his conviction by

a petition for writ of habeas corpus must exhaust state judicial remedies. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(1). 

The exhaustion doctrine is based on comity to the state court and gives the state court the initial

opportunity to correct the state's alleged constitutional deprivations. Coleman v. Thompson, 501

U.S. 722, 731, 111 S.Ct. 2546, 2554-55 (1991); Rose v. Lundy, 455 U.S. 509, 518, 102 S.Ct.

1198, 1203 (1982); Buffalo v. Sunn, 854 F.2d 1158, 1163 (9th Cir. 1988). 

Case 1:05-cv-00595-REC -SMS Document 6 Filed 05/24/05 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

A petitioner can satisfy the exhaustion requirement by providing the highest state court

with a full and fair opportunity to consider each claim before presenting it to the federal court. 

Picard v. Connor, 404 U.S. 270, 276, 92 S.Ct. 509, 512 (1971); Johnson v. Zenon, 88 F.3d 828,

829 (9th Cir. 1996). A federal court will find that the highest state court was given a full and fair

opportunity to hear a claim if the petitioner has presented the highest state court with the claim's

factual and legal basis. Duncan v. Henry, 513 U.S. 364, 365, 115 S.Ct. 887, 888 (1995) (legal

basis); Kenney v. Tamayo-Reyes, 504 U.S. 1, 112 S.Ct. 1715, 1719 (1992) (factual basis).

Additionally, the petitioner must have specifically told the state court that he was raising a

federal constitutional claim. Duncan, 513 U.S. at 365-66, 115 S.Ct. at 888; Keating v. Hood, 133

F.3d 1240, 1241 (9th Cir.1998). For example, if a petitioner wishes to claim that the trial court

violated his due process rights "he must say so, not only in federal court but in state court." 

Duncan, 513 U.S. at 366, 115 S.Ct. at 888.

Because it is unclear what, if any, claims presented in the instant federal petition for writ

of habeas corpus were exhausted in the state’s highest court, Petitioner will be ordered to show 

cause regarding exhaustion.

C. Claims Unclear

On the form petition, Petitioner merely indicates that the entire nature of the trial

proceedings were unlawful and he is without a copy of the transcript. Petitioner is advised that in

order to proceed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, he must allege a federal constitutional violation. 

The "Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases" provide that the petition: 

" . . . shall specify all the grounds for relief which are available to the petitioner

and of which he has or by the exercise of reasonable diligence should have

knowledge and Shall set forth in summary form the facts supporting each of the

grounds thus specified." 

Rule 2(c), 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Additionally, the Advisory Committee Note to these rules explains

that: " '(N)otice' pleading is not sufficient, for the petition is expected to state facts that point to a

'real possibility of constitutional error.' " 28 U.S.C. § 2254, p. 1111; Quoted approvingly in

Blackledge v. Allison, 431 U.S. 63, 75 n.7, 97 S.Ct. 1621 (1977).

Case 1:05-cv-00595-REC -SMS Document 6 Filed 05/24/05 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

Petitioner must amend the petition to specifically allege a constitutional violation and

provide a brief statement of the facts in support of the claim or the petition will be subject to

dismissal.

D. Monetary Damages

It is unclear from reviewing the petition whether Petitioner is attempting to seek monetary

damages pursuant to this petition. To the extent Petitioner is requesting such relief, it is without

merit. Monetary damages are not available to a Petitioner in a habeas action. McCarthy v.

Bronson, 500 U.S. 136, ----, 111 S.Ct. 1737, 1740 (1991) (recognizing two primary categories of

suits brought by prisoners--applications for habeas corpus relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 2254

and 2255 and actions for monetary or injunctive relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983"). 

Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Petitioner shall SHOW CAUSE why the petition should not be dismissed within

THIRTY (30) days of the date of service of this order. Petitioner may comply

with this directive by filing an AMENDED PETITION which clearly and briefly

states the claim for relief, along with a brief statement of supporting facts,

indicates what claims have been exhausted, and names a proper Respondent. The

amended petition should be COMPLETE, clearly and boldly titled "AMENDED

PETITION," reference the appropriate case number assigned above, and be an

original signed under penalty of perjury. Petitioner should also note that every

pleading to which an amendment or supplement is permitted must be retyped and

filed so that it is complete in itself without reference to the prior or superseded

pleading. Local Rule 15-220. 

2. The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to send Petitioner a blank form petition for

prisoners filing pursuant to § 2254. 

Petitioner is forewarned that his failure to comply with this order may result in a

Recommendation that the Petition be dismissed pursuant to Local Rule 11-110.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 24, 2005 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder 

Case 1:05-cv-00595-REC -SMS Document 6 Filed 05/24/05 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

5

icido3 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-00595-REC -SMS Document 6 Filed 05/24/05 Page 5 of 5