Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-00168/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-00168-0/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

16cv0168 GPC (NLS)

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

CHARLES TWAIN CLEMANS,

Petitioner,

v.

UNNAMED,

Respondent.

Case No.: 16cv0168 GPC (NLS)

ORDER DISMISSING CASE 

WITHOUT PREJUDICE

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 THE 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 28, 2016, a copy of this 

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

FAILURE TO ALLEGE EXHAUSTION OF STATE JUDICIAL 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 

Case 3:16-cv-00168-GPC-NLS Document 2 Filed 02/01/16 Page 1 of 5
2

16cv0168 GPC (NLS)

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

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 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.” Matthews v. Evatt, 105 F.3d 907, 911 (4th Cir. 

1997); see Breard v. Pruett, 134 F.3d 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;

Case 3:16-cv-00168-GPC-NLS Document 2 Filed 02/01/16 Page 2 of 5
3

16cv0168 GPC (NLS)

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

(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. § 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 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.

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 

Case 3:16-cv-00168-GPC-NLS Document 2 Filed 02/01/16 Page 3 of 5
4

16cv0168 GPC (NLS)

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 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 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, Petitioner claims that he is entitled to resentencing under California law. 

(Pet. at 7.) In no way does Petitioner specifically claim he is “in custody in violation of 

the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 

FAILURE TO NAME A PROPER RESPONDENT

Finally, 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 2(a), 28 U.S.C. foll. § 2254). Federal courts lack personal jurisdiction 

when a habeas petition fails to name a proper respondent. See id.

The warden is the typical respondent. However, “the rules following section 2254 

do not specify the warden.” Id. “[T]he ‘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). If “a petitioner is in custody due to the state action he is 

challenging, ‘[t]he named respondent shall be the state officer who has official custody of 

Case 3:16-cv-00168-GPC-NLS Document 2 Filed 02/01/16 Page 4 of 5
5

16cv0168 GPC (NLS)

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

the petitioner (for example, the warden of the prison).’” Id. (quoting Rule 2, 28 U.S.C. 

foll. § 2254 advisory committee’s note).

A long standing rule in the Ninth Circuit holds “that a petitioner may not seek [a 

writ of] habeas corpus against the State under . . . [whose] authority . . . the petitioner is 

in custody. The actual person who is [the] custodian [of the petitioner] must be the 

respondent.” Ashley v. Washington, 394 F.2d 125, 126 (9th Cir. 1968). This requirement 

exists because a writ of habeas corpus acts upon the custodian of the state prisoner, the 

person who will produce “the body” if directed to do so by the Court. “Both the warden 

of a California prison and the Director of Corrections for California have the power to 

produce the prisoner.” Ortiz-Sandoval, 81 F.3d at 895.

Here, Petitioner has failed to name a respondent which the judgment which he 

seeks to attack was entered shall each be named as respondents.” Rule 2 (b), 28 U.S.C. 

foll. § 2254. Here, there is no basis for Petitioner to have named the Attorney General as 

a respondent in this action. In order for this Court to entertain the Petition filed in this 

action, Petitioner must name the warden in charge of the correctional facility in which he

is presently confined or the Secretary of the California Department of Corrections and 

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

CONCLUSION

For the forgoing reasons, the Petition is DISMISSED without prejudice. In order 

to have this case reopened, Petitioner must (1) either pay the filing fee or provide 

adequate proof of his inability to pay and (2) file a First Amended Petition which cures 

the pleading deficiencies discussed above, no later than March 28, 2016. For 

Petitioner’s convenience, the Clerk of Court shall attach to this Order a blank in forma 

pauperis application and a blank First Amended Petition form.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 1, 2016

Case 3:16-cv-00168-GPC-NLS Document 2 Filed 02/01/16 Page 5 of 5