Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_12-cv-02870/USCOURTS-casd-3_12-cv-02870-0/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)

---

5 

10 

15 

20 

25 

2 

3 

4 

6 

7 

8 

9 

11 

12 

13 

14 

16 

17 

18 

19 

21 

22 

23 

24 

26 

27 

28 

FILED , ' 

, . 13 JAN -4 M1 8: 38 

~-~ f' -- i : ~«( ·~;t~)p T 

L':'~ ~t;i~ 

Df1"t/T '( 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

IVORY J. PHILLIPS, Civil No. 12-2870 WQH (BOS) 

Petitioner, 

ORDER: 

(1) GRANTING MOTION TO 

v. PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS (ECF 

No.2]; 

(2) DENYING SECOND MOTION TO CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS AS CORRECTIONS AND REHABILITATION, MOOT [ECF No.3]; and, 

(3) DISMISSING CASE WITHOUT 

PREJUDICE AND WITH LEAVE TO 

AMEND 

Respondent. 

Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has submitted a Petition for Writ ofHabeas 

Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, together with a request to proceed in forma pauperis. 

MOTIONS TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS 

Petitioner has filed two Motions to Proceed in Forma Pauperis. (See ECF Nos. 2,3.) In 

his first motion, Petitioner has included a trust account statement that shows he has $0.00 on 

account at the California correctional institution in which he is presently confined. Petitioner 

cannot afford the $5.00 filing fee. Thus, the Court GRANTS Petitioner's first application to 

proceed in forma pauperis [ECF No.2], and allows Petitioner to prosecute the above-referenced 

action as a poor person without being required to prepay fees or costs and without being required 

-1- 12cv2870 

Case 3:12-cv-02870-WQH-BGS Document 4 Filed 01/04/13 Page 1 of 6
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 

to post security. The Clerk ofthe Court shall file the Petition for Writ ofHabeas Corpus without 

prepayment oitlie filing fee. Petitioner's second motion to proceed in forma pauperis [ECF No. 

3] is therefore DENIED as moot. 

FAILURE TO STATE A COGNIZABLE CLAIM ON HABEAS CORPUS 

Upon review of the Petition, it appears to the Court that a Petition for Writ of Habeas 

Corpus brought pursuant to § 2254 is not the proper vehicle for the claims Petitioner presents. 

Petitioner states that he seeks to allege "a plethora of wrongful and inappropriate acts and 

practices by CDCR custody and staff." (Pet. at 1, ECF No. 1.) He does not state that he seeks 

to challenge the validity ofhis state court conviction. 

Challenges to the fact or duration of confinement are brought by petition for a writ of 

habeas corpus, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254; challenges to conditions of confinement are 

brought pursuant to the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1983. See Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 

475, 488-500 (1973). When a state prisoner is challenging the very fact or duration of his 

physical imprisonment, and the reliefhe seeks is a determination that he is entitled to immediate 

release or a speedier release from that imprisonment, his sole federal remedy is a writ ofhabeas 

corpus. Id. at 500. On the other hand, a § 1983 action is a proper remedy for a state prisoner 

who is making a constitutional challenge to the conditions ofhis prison life, but not to the fact 

or length of his custody. Id. at 499; McIntosh v. United States Parole Comm 'n, 115 F.3d 809, 

811-12 (10thCir. 1997). 

Petitioner's claims are not cognizable on habeas because they do not challenge the 

constitutional validity or duration ofhis confinement. See 28 U.S.C. 2254(a); Preiser, 411 U.S. 

at 500; Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 480-85 (1994). "Section 2254 applies only to 

collateral attacks on state court judgments." McGuire v. Blubaum, 376 F. Supp. 284, 285 (D. 

Ariz. 1974). In no way does Petitioner claim his state court conviction violates the Constitution 

or laws or treaties of the United States. Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases 

provides for summary dismissal ofa habeas petition "[i]fit plainly appears from the face ofthe 

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. foIl. § 2254. Here, it is plain from the Petition that Petitioner is not 

I. E'""'YDnl: El'll.F:·PROSEWQII )2('V2870 gnmtlFP&dismiF'.wpd. 1313 -2- 12cv2870 

Case 3:12-cv-02870-WQH-BGS Document 4 Filed 01/04/13 Page 2 of 6
5 

10 

15 

20 

25 

2 

3 

4 

6 

7 

8 

9 

11 

12 

13 

14 

16 

17 

18 

19 

21 

22 

23 

24 

26 

27 

28 

presently entitled to federal habeas reliefbecause he has not alleged that the state court violated 

his feder"alrights. 

FAILURE TO NAME PROPER RESPONDENT 

Review ofthe Petition also 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. foIl. § 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 ofthe 

institution in which the petitioner is incarcerated ... or the chief officer in charge ofstate penal 

institutions.'" Id. (quoting Rule 2(a), 28 U.S.C. foIl. § 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. foIl. § 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" ifdirected to do so by the Court. "Both the warden ofa California prison and the Director 

ofCorrect ions for California have the power to produce the prisoner." Ortiz-Sandoval, 81 F.3d 

at 895. 

Here, Petitioner has incorrectly named "California Department of Corrections and 

Rehabilitation," 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. 

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

/11 

-3- 12cv2870 

Case 3:12-cv-02870-WQH-BGS Document 4 Filed 01/04/13 Page 3 of 6
5 

10 

15 

20 

25 

2 

3 

4 

6 

7 

8 

9 

11 

12 

13 

14 

16 

17 

18 

19 

21 

22 

23 

24 

26 

27 

28 

FAILURE TO ALLEGE EXHAUSTION OF STATE JUDICIAL REMEDIES 

Further: ifPetitioner does wish to challenge either his state court conviction or the length 

of his confinement in state prison, he 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 remedies a petitioner must allege, in state court, how one or more 

ofhis 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). 

Nowhere on the Petition does Petitioner allege that he raised his claims in the California 

Supreme Court. IfPetitioner has raised his claims in the California Supreme Court he must so 

specify. 

Further, the Court cautions Petitioner that under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death 

Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA) a one-year period oflimitation shall apply to a petition for a writ 

ofhabeas corpus by a person in custody pursuant to the judgment ofa 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 ofthe 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). 

-4- 12cv2870 

Case 3:12-cv-02870-WQH-BGS Document 4 Filed 01/04/13 Page 4 of 6
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 statute oflimitations does not run while a properly filed state habeas corpus petition 

is pending. 28 D.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). 

JURISDICTION AND VENUE 

Finally, 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 RJ. 

Donovan State Prison, located in San Diego County, which is within the jurisdictional 

boundaries of the United States District Court for the Southern District of California. See 

28 U.S.c. § 84(d). Petitioner does not state where his state court conviction occurred. When 

a prisoner is challenging a state court conviction via a Petition for Writ ofHabeas Corpus, the 

district court of the district in which the state court conviction took place is a more convenient 

forum because of the accessibility ofevidence, records and witnesses. IfPetitioner chooses to 

file a First Amended Petition in this case, he is advised that he must tell the Court where the state 

court conviction he seeks to challenge occurred. 

CONCLUSION 

For all the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS Petitioner's first Motion to Proceed 

in Forma Pauperis [ECF No.2], DENIES Petitioner's second Motion to Proceed in Forma 

Pauperis [ECF No.3] as moot, and DISMISSES the Petition without prejudice and with leave 

to amend. IfPetitioner wishes to challenge the validity ofhis state court conviction and proceed 

with this case, he must, no later than March 1.2013, file a First Amended Petition that cures 

the pleading deficiencies outlined in this Order. IfPetitioner wishes to challenge the conditions 

of his confinement, he must file a complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 which will be given 

-5- 12cv2870 

Case 3:12-cv-02870-WQH-BGS Document 4 Filed 01/04/13 Page 5 of 6
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 

a new case number. The Clerk ofCourt is directed to mailPetitioner a blank First Amended , 

Petitionjorm anda blank Civil Rights Complaint Form Pursuant to 42 U.S. C. § 1983 together 

with a copy ofthis Order. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: (L!d;J , 

-6- 12cv2870 

Case 3:12-cv-02870-WQH-BGS Document 4 Filed 01/04/13 Page 6 of 6