Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_13-cv-00792/USCOURTS-casd-3_13-cv-00792-0/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

SOLOMON TEMPLE, Civil

No.

13-0792 H (DHB)

Petitioner,

ORDER DISMISSING CASE 

v. WITHOUT PREJUDICE

UNKNOWN, 

Respondent.

Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed a letter which the Court has

construed as a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254.

FAILURE TO SATISFY FILING FEE REQUIREMENT

Petitioner has failed to pay the $5.00 filing fee and has failed to move to proceed

in forma pauperis. This Court cannot proceed until Petitioner has either paid the $5.00

filing fee or qualified to proceed in forma pauperis. See Rule 3(a), 28 U.S.C. foll. §

2254. 

FAILURE TO NAME PROPER RESPONDENT

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. OrtizSandoval 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.

-1- 13cv0792

Case 3:13-cv-00792-H-DHB Document 2 Filed 04/10/13 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

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. 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. Brittingham v. United States, 982

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

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 remedies. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b), (c); Granberry v. Greer, 481 U.S. 129, 133-34

(1987). Ordinarily, to satisfy the exhaustion requirement, a petitioner must “‘fairly

present[]’ his federal claim to the highest state court with jurisdiction to consider it, or

. . . demonstrate[] that no state remedy remains available.” Johnson v. Zenon, 88 F.3d

828, 829 (9th Cir. 1996) (citations omitted). Moreover, to properly exhaust state court

-2- 13cv0792

Case 3:13-cv-00792-H-DHB Document 2 Filed 04/10/13 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

remedies a petitioner must allege, in state court, how one or more of his or her federal

rights have been violated. 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.” See Duncan v. Henry, 513 U.S. 364, 365-66 (1995)(emphasis

added).

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 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 Supp. 2002).

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

-3- 13cv0792

Case 3:13-cv-00792-H-DHB Document 2 Filed 04/10/13 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

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 GROUNDS FOR RELIEF IN PETITION

Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases states that the petition “shall set forth in

summary form the facts supporting each of the grounds . . . specified [in the petition].” 

Rule 2(c), 28 U.S.C. foll. § 2254. See also Boehme v. Maxwell, 423 F.2d 1056, 1058

(9th Cir. 1970) (trial court’s dismissal of federal habeas proceeding affirmed where

petitioner made conclusory allegations instead of factual allegations showing that he was

entitled to relief). Here, Petitioner has violated Rule 2(c). While courts should liberally

interpret pro se pleadings with leniency and understanding, this should not place on the

reviewing court the entire onus of ferreting out grounds for relief. See Zichko v. Idaho,

247 F.3d 1015, 1020 (9th Cir. 2001). The Court finds that the Petition contains

conclusory allegations without any grounds for relief. A federal court may not entertain

a petition that contains allegations which are conclusory. 

VENUE

Finally, Petitioner does not reveal where his state court conviction occurred. A

petition for writ of habeas corpus may be filed in the United States District Court of

either the judicial district in which the petitioner is presently confined or the judicial

district in which he was convicted and sentenced. See 28 U.S.C. § 2241(d); Braden v.

30th Judicial Circuit Court, 410 U.S. 484, 497 (1973). Petitioner is presently confined

at California State Prison, Sacramento, located in Sacramento County, which is within

the jurisdictional boundaries of the United States District Court for the Eastern District

of California. See 28 U.S.C. § 84(b). Information from the California Court of Appeal

website indicates Petitioner’s conviction also took place in Sacramento County. (See

http://appellatecases.courtinfo.ca.gov, click “search,” search by party, enter “Solomon

-4- 13cv0792

Case 3:13-cv-00792-H-DHB Document 2 Filed 04/10/13 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

Temple,” click case number S175170, click “lower court.”)1

Thus, jurisdiction exists in the Eastern District, not in the Southern District. Petitioner

is advised that, if he wishes to pursue this case, he should file a new federal habeas

corpus petition in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the Court DISMISSES the Petition without prejudice. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: April 10, 2013 _________________________________________

Marilyn L. Huff

United States District Judge

CC: ALL PARTIES

 The Court takes judicial notice pursuant to Fed. R. Evid. 201 of the information contained on the 1

California Court of Appeal website. See Daniels-Hall v. National Educ. Ass’n, 629 F.3d 992, 998-99 (9th Cir.

2010).

-5- 13cv0792

Case 3:13-cv-00792-H-DHB Document 2 Filed 04/10/13 Page 5 of 5