Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_19-cv-02319/USCOURTS-casd-3_19-cv-02319-0/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

19cv2319 GPC (LL)

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

RAYMOND ENRIQUE TEQUIDA,

Petitioner,

v.

M.E. SPEARMAN, Warden,

Respondent.

Case No.: 19cv2319 GPC (LL)

ORDER DENYING IN FORMA 

PAUPERIS APPLICATION AND 

DISMISSING CASE WITHOUT 

PREJUDICE

Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has not paid the $5.00 filing fee and 

has filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, together 

with a request to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a).

REQUEST TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS

The request to proceed in forma pauperis is denied because Petitioner has not 

provided the Court with sufficient information to determine Petitioner’s financial status. 

A request to proceed in forma pauperis made by a state prisoner must include a certificate 

from the warden or other appropriate officer showing the amount of money or securities 

Petitioner has on account in the institution. Rule 3(a)(2), 28 U.S.C. foll. § 2254; Local 

Rule 3.2. Petitioner has failed to provide the Court with a required Prison Certificate

signed by an authorized prison official. Accordingly, the Court DENIES the request to 

proceed in forma pauperis.

Case 3:19-cv-02319-GPC-LL Document 3 Filed 12/16/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 4
2

19cv2319 GPC (LL)

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

FAIULRE TO STATE A COGNIZABLE FEDERAL CLAIM

Additionally, the Petition must be dismissed because 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 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 contends he is entitled to resentencing under newly enacted 

California laws regarding gun enhancements and prior serious felony enhancements 

passed as California Senate Bill Nos. 620 and 1393, respectively. (Pet. at 6-7, ECF No. 

1.) His claims, as presented, reference only California state law. 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.

Further, the Court notes that Petitioner cannot simply amend his Petition to state a 

federal habeas claim and then refile the amended petition in this case. He must exhaust 

state judicial remedies before bringing his claims via federal habeas. State prisoners who 

wish to challenge their state court conviction 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 

Case 3:19-cv-02319-GPC-LL Document 3 Filed 12/16/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 4
3

19cv2319 GPC (LL)

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

Court with a fair opportunity to rule on the merits of every issue raised in his or her 

federal habeas petition. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b), (c); Granberry, 481 U.S. at 133-34. 

Moreover, to properly exhaust state court judicial 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 the due process 

of law guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment, he must say so, not only in federal 

court, but in state court.” Id. (emphasis added).

Additionally, the Court cautions Petitioner that under the Antiterrorism and 

Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, 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 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 Supp. 2002).

Case 3:19-cv-02319-GPC-LL Document 3 Filed 12/16/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 4
4

19cv2319 GPC (LL)

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 Court also notes that 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).

CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, the Court DENIES Petitioner’s request to proceed in 

forma pauperis and DISMISSES this action without prejudice because Petitioner has 

failed to state a cognizable federal claim. To have this case reopened, Petitioner must, no 

later than February 12, 2020, (1) either pay the filing fee or provide adequate proof of 

his inability to pay and (2) file a First Amended Petition that cures the pleading 

deficiency set forth above. For Petitioner’s convenience, the Clerk of Court shall include 

a blank in forma pauperis application and a blank form Petition with this Order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 16, 2019

Case 3:19-cv-02319-GPC-LL Document 3 Filed 12/16/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 4