Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_15-cv-02743/USCOURTS-casd-3_15-cv-02743-0/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

RONALD DELBERT GARDNER, Civil No. 15cv2743-WQH (DHB)

Petitioner,

ORDER DENYING IN FORMA

PAUPERIS APPLICATION AND

DISMISSING CASE WITHOUT

PREJUDICE

v.

J. SOTO, Warden,

Respondent.

On November 16, 2015, Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed a Petition for

a 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), in the District Court for the Central District of

California. (ECF Nos. 1, 7.) On December 7, 2015, the Petition was transferred to this Court. 

(ECF No. 4.)

MOTION 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 the required Prison Certificate. 

I:\Chambers Hayes\SIGNED ORDERS\15cv2743-Deny&Dismiss.wpd, 121015 -1- 15cv2743

Case 3:15-cv-02743-WQH-DHB Document 8 Filed 12/10/15 Page 1 of 4
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

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 February 8, 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 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).

Petitioner does not allege that he raised any of his claims in the California Supreme Court. 

(Pet. at 5-6.) The burden of proving that a claim has been exhausted lies with the petitioner. 

Cartwright v. Cupp, 650 F.2d 1103, 1104 (9th Cir. 1981). Because Petitioner has failed to allege

exhaustion as to any claim presented in the Petition, it is subject to dismissal. See Rasberry v.

Garcia, 448 F.3d 1150, 1154 (9th Cir. 2006) (“Once a district court determines that a habeas

petition contains only unexhausted claims, it need not inquire further into the petitioner’s

intentions. Instead, it may simply dismiss the habeas petition for failure to exhaust.”), citing

Jiminez v. Rice, 276 F.3d 478, 481 (9th Cir. 2001). 

I:\Chambers Hayes\SIGNED ORDERS\15cv2743-Deny&Dismiss.wpd, 121015 -2- 15cv2743

Case 3:15-cv-02743-WQH-DHB Document 8 Filed 12/10/15 Page 2 of 4
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

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 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 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 alleged exhaustion of state court remedies and has not satisfied the

filing fee requirement.

/ / /

I:\Chambers Hayes\SIGNED ORDERS\15cv2743-Deny&Dismiss.wpd, 121015 -3- 15cv2743

Case 3:15-cv-02743-WQH-DHB Document 8 Filed 12/10/15 Page 3 of 4
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

CONCLUSION

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

pauperis and DISMISSES this action without prejudice because Petitioner has failed to satisfy

filing fee requirement and failed to allege exhaustion of state judicial remedies. To have this

case reopened, Petitioner must, no later than February 8, 2016, pay the $5.00 filing fee or

submit adequate proof of his inability to pay the fee, and file a First Amended Petition that cures

the pleading deficiencies set forth above. The Clerk of Court shall send Petitioner a blank

Southern District of California First Amended Petition form and a blank Southern District of

California Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis form along with this Order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: December 10, 2015

WILLIAM Q. HAYES

United States District Judge

I:\Chambers Hayes\SIGNED ORDERS\15cv2743-Deny&Dismiss.wpd, 121015 -4- 15cv2743

Case 3:15-cv-02743-WQH-DHB Document 8 Filed 12/10/15 Page 4 of 4