Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-00721/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-00721-0/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\BATTAGLI\DJ CASES\2 Orders to be filed\11cv0721-Dismiss.wpd, 41811 -1- 11cv0721

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DARRYL LEE DUNSMORE, Civil No. 11cv0721-AJB (JMA)

Petitioner,

ORDER DISMISSING PETITION

v. WITHOUT PREJUDICE

GEORGE NEOTTI, Warden, et al.,

Respondents.

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

Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, and has paid the filing fee. The Petition is subject

to dismissal because Petitioner has not used a court-approved form and has not alleged

exhaustion of state court remedies. In addition, Petitioner challenges the conditions of his

confinement but not the fact or duration of his incarceration, and it appears his claims are

properly brought in a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 rather than a habeas

petition. 

FAILURE TO USE PROPER FORM

A Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus must be submitted in accordance with the Local

Rules of the United States District Court for the Southern District of California. See Rule 2(d),

28 U.S.C. foll. § 2254. In order to comply with the Local Rules, the petition must be submitted

upon a court-approved form and in accordance with the instructions approved by the Court. Id.;

S. D. CAL. CIVLR HC.2(b). Presently, Petitioner has not submitted the application for a writ of

Case 3:11-cv-00721-AJB-JMA Document 2 Filed 04/18/11 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\BATTAGLI\DJ CASES\2 Orders to be filed\11cv0721-Dismiss.wpd, 41811 -2- 11cv0721

habeas corpus on a court-approved form. A court-approved amended petition form will be sent

to Petitioner along with a copy of this Order.

EXHAUSTION OF STATE COURT REMEDIES

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).

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

Supreme Court. Petitioner merely states that he has submitted his claims to the state appellate

court in a habeas petition. (Pet. at 4.) If Petitioner has raised his claims in the California

Supreme Court he must so specify. 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).

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;

Case 3:11-cv-00721-AJB-JMA Document 2 Filed 04/18/11 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\BATTAGLI\DJ CASES\2 Orders to be filed\11cv0721-Dismiss.wpd, 41811 -3- 11cv0721

(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).

PROPER FORM OF ACTION

Finally, the Court notes that Petitioner may be attempting to bring his claims in a habeas

petition when he should present them in a civil rights action. Petitioner alleges that he is

receiving improper medical care. (Pet. at 2.) He contends that the administrators and employees

of the facility in which he is confined are deliberately indifferent to his medical needs. (Id.)

Challenges to the fact or duration of confinement are properly brought in a petition for

a writ of habeas corpus, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, whereas 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 relief he seeks is a determination that he is

entitled to immediate release or a speedier release, his sole federal remedy is a writ of habeas

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 of his prison life, but not to the fact

Case 3:11-cv-00721-AJB-JMA Document 2 Filed 04/18/11 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\BATTAGLI\DJ CASES\2 Orders to be filed\11cv0721-Dismiss.wpd, 41811 -4- 11cv0721

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

811-12 (10th Cir. 1997). 

Preiser left open the possibility of assertion of a conditions-of-confinement claim in a

habeas application where additional and unconstitutional restraints are at issue. See Preiser, 411

U.S. at 499 (“This is not to say that habeas corpus may not also be available to challenge such

prison conditions. When a prisoner is put under additional and unconstitutional restraints during

his lawful custody, it is arguable that habeas corpus will lie to remove the restraints making the

custody illegal.”) The allegations of improper medical care as alleged in the Petition are not the

type of “additional and unconstitutional restraints” which are distinct from conditions of

confinement, and Petitioner’s allegations therefore do not state a claim cognizable on federal

habeas. Wilwording v. Swenson, 404 U.S. 249, 251 (1971); Tucker v. Carlson, 925 F.2d 330,

332 (9th Cir. 1991).

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 used a court-approved form and has not alleged exhaustion of state

court remedies. In addition, it appears that Petitioner’s claims are properly brought in a civil

rights complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 rather than in a habeas petition.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Accordingly, the Court DISMISSES the Petition without prejudice due to Petitioner’s

failure to use a court-approved form and failure to allege exhaustion of state court remedies. The

dismissal is without prejudice to Petitioner to file a First Amended Petition in which he cures

the pleading defects identified in this Order and states a claim which is cognizable on federal

habeas. The dismissal is also without prejudice to Petitioner to file a separate civil rights

complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, which will be assigned a separate civil number. To

have this case reopened, Petitioner must file a First Amended Petition no later than June 9,

2011, in conformance with this Order. The Clerk of Court shall send Petitioner a blank Southern

Case 3:11-cv-00721-AJB-JMA Document 2 Filed 04/18/11 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\BATTAGLI\DJ CASES\2 Orders to be filed\11cv0721-Dismiss.wpd, 41811 -5- 11cv0721

District of California amended petition form and a blank Southern District of California 42

U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Complaint form along with a copy of this Order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: April 13, 2011

Hon. Anthony J. Battaglia

U.S. District Judge

Copies to: ALL PARTIES

Case 3:11-cv-00721-AJB-JMA Document 2 Filed 04/18/11 Page 5 of 5