Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_12-cv-00449/USCOURTS-casd-3_12-cv-00449-0/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

K :\C O M M O N \B A TTA G L I\D J CA SES\2 O rders to be filed\12cv0449-D ism iss.w pd, 22712 -1- 12cv0449

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DWAINE THOMPSON, Civil No. 12cv0449-AJB (WVG)

Petitioner,

ORDER DISMISSING CASE 

v. WITHOUT PREJUDICE

SAN DIEGO SUPERIOR COURT,

Respondent.

Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed a Petition for a Writ of Habeas

Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, but has failed to pay the $5.00 filing fee and has failed to

move to proceed in forma pauperis. The Petition is dismissed without prejudice for the

following reasons.

FAILURE TO SATISFY THE FILING FEE REQUIREMENT

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 April 23, 2012, a copy of this Order with the $5.00 fee or with adequate proof of

his inability to pay the fee. 

/ / /

Case 3:12-cv-00449-AJB-WVG Document 2 Filed 02/23/12 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

K :\C O M M O N \B A TTA G L I\D J CA SES\2 O rders to be filed\12cv0449-D ism iss.w pd, 22712 -2- 12cv0449

FAILURE TO NAME A PROPER RESPONDENT

In addition, 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).

“Typically, that person is the warden of the facility in which the petitioner is incarcerated.” Id.

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 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 incorrectly named “San Diego Superior Court,” as Respondent. In

order for this Court to entertain the Petition filed in this action, Petitioner must name the warden

in charge of the state correctional facility in which Petitioner is presently confined or the

Director of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. Brittingham v. United

States, 982 F.2d 378, 379 (9th Cir. 1992) (per curiam). 

/ / /

Case 3:12-cv-00449-AJB-WVG Document 2 Filed 02/23/12 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

K :\C O M M O N \B A TTA G L I\D J CA SES\2 O rders to be filed\12cv0449-D ism iss.w pd, 22712 -3- 12cv0449

FAILURE TO STATE A COGNIZABLE 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 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 “all kinds of illegal behavior . . . and works of evil” occurred

during his trial involving the trial judge, jury and clerk of court. (Pet. at 6-8.) 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. If Petitioner contends that the actions he complains of violated his

federal Constitutional rights, for example, he must so state.

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 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:

Case 3:12-cv-00449-AJB-WVG Document 2 Filed 02/23/12 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

K :\C O M M O N \B A TTA G L I\D J CA SES\2 O rders to be filed\12cv0449-D ism iss.w pd, 22712 -4- 12cv0449

“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).

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 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.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).

/ / /

Case 3:12-cv-00449-AJB-WVG Document 2 Filed 02/23/12 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

K :\C O M M O N \B A TTA G L I\D J CA SES\2 O rders to be filed\12cv0449-D ism iss.w pd, 22712 -5- 12cv0449

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 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 satisfied the filing fee requirement, has not named a proper respondent

and has not stated a cognizable federal claim.

CONCLUSION

The Petition is dismissed without prejudice for failure to satisfy the filing fee

requirement, failure to name a proper Respondent and failure to allege a cognizable federal

claim. If Petitioner wishes to proceed with this case, he must submit, no later than April 23,

2012, a copy of this Order with the $5.00 fee or with adequate proof of his inability to pay the

fee and a First Amended Petition which cures the defects identified in this Order. The Clerk of

Court shall send a blank Southern District of California In Forma Pauperis Application and a

blank Southern District of California amended petition form to Petitioner along with a copy of

this Order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: February 23, 2012

Hon. Anthony J. Battaglia

U.S. District Judge

CC: ALL PARTIES

Case 3:12-cv-00449-AJB-WVG Document 2 Filed 02/23/12 Page 5 of 5