Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_08-cv-00124/USCOURTS-casd-3_08-cv-00124-0/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:\COMMON\CHMB_MIL\__SIGNED ORDERS\CIVIL\1 30 2008\08cv0124_grtifp&dism_1 30 2008.wpd, 1308 -1- 08cv0124

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

BERNARD HILL, Civil No. 08-0124 JM (CAB)

Petitioner,

ORDER: 

(1) GRANTING APPLICATION

TO PROCEED IN FORMA

PAUPERIS; and

(2) DISMISSING CASE

WITHOUT PREJUDICE AND

WITH LEAVE TO AMEND

v.

J.W. SULLIVAN, Warden, et al.,

Respondents.

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

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

pauperis. 

MOTION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS

Petitioner has $2.11 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 application to proceed in forma pauperis, 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 to post security. The Clerk of the Court shall file

the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus without prepayment of the filing fee.

Case 3:08-cv-00124-JM-CAB Document 3 Filed 01/30/08 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:\COMMON\CHMB_MIL\__SIGNED ORDERS\CIVIL\1 30 2008\08cv0124_grtifp&dism_1 30 2008.wpd, 1308 -2- 08cv0124

FAILURE TO NAME PROPER RESPONDENT

Review of the Petition 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. foll. § 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 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 “J.W. Sullivan and Hon. Gerry Brown,” 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). 

Case 3:08-cv-00124-JM-CAB Document 3 Filed 01/30/08 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:\COMMON\CHMB_MIL\__SIGNED ORDERS\CIVIL\1 30 2008\08cv0124_grtifp&dism_1 30 2008.wpd, 1308 -3- 08cv0124

FAILURE TO STATE A COGNIZABLE FEDERAL 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 “petitioner’s request for an instruction on the

entrapment defense should have been granted” (claim one) and “the trial court erred in

unduly restricting petitioner’s cross examination of the under cover officer” (claim two).

(See Pet. at 6-13.) Petitioner does not 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 restate his claims as federal

habeas in an amended petition and refile it in this case. He must have first exhausted his

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

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

Case 3:08-cv-00124-JM-CAB Document 3 Filed 01/30/08 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:\COMMON\CHMB_MIL\__SIGNED ORDERS\CIVIL\1 30 2008\08cv0124_grtifp&dism_1 30 2008.wpd, 1308 -4- 08cv0124

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. 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 (Act), signed into law on April 24, 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).

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), cert. denied, 529 U.S. 1104 (2000). 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.”).

/ / /

Case 3:08-cv-00124-JM-CAB Document 3 Filed 01/30/08 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:\COMMON\CHMB_MIL\__SIGNED ORDERS\CIVIL\1 30 2008\08cv0124_grtifp&dism_1 30 2008.wpd, 1308 -5- 08cv0124

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 GRANTS Petitioner’s motion to proceed in

forma pauperis and DISMISSES this action without prejudice and with leave to amend.

To have this case reopened, Petitioner must, no later than April 1, 2008, file a First

Amended Petition that cures the pleading deficiencies set forth above. THE CLERK OF

COURT IS DIRECTED TO MAIL PETITIONER A BLANK FIRST AMENDED

PETITION FORM.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: January 30, 2008

 Hon. Jeffrey T. Miller

 United States District Judge

Case 3:08-cv-00124-JM-CAB Document 3 Filed 01/30/08 Page 5 of 5