Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_13-cv-00868/USCOURTS-casd-3_13-cv-00868-0/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

DAVID B. TURNER, JR., Civil No. 13-0868 LAB (WVG)

Petitioner,

ORDER DISMISSING CASE 

v. WITHOUT PREJUDICE

SAN DIEGO SHERIFFS 5 DOES,

Respondents.

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

Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254.

FAILURE TO SATISFY FILING FEE REQUIREMENT

Petitioner has failed to either pay the $5.00 filing fee or 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

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. “[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

I:\Everyone\_EFILE-PROSE\LAB\13cv0868_dismiss.wpd, 41513 -1- 13cv0868

Case 3:13-cv-00868-LAB-WVG Document 2 Filed 04/15/13 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

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).

Here, Petitioner has incorrectly named “San Diego Sheriffs 5 Does,” 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). 

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 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). Nowhere

on the Petition does Petitioner allege that he raised his claims in the California Supreme Court. 

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;

I:\Everyone\_EFILE-PROSE\LAB\13cv0868_dismiss.wpd, 41513 -2- 13cv0868

Case 3:13-cv-00868-LAB-WVG Document 2 Filed 04/15/13 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

(B) the date on which the impediment to filing an application

created byState 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).

FAILURE TO STATE A COGNIZABLE CLAIM ON HABEAS CORPUS

Finally, 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. 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, 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 from that

imprisonment, 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 prisoner who is making a constitutional challenge to the

conditions of his confinement, 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 (10th Cir. 1997). 

I:\Everyone\_EFILE-PROSE\LAB\13cv0868_dismiss.wpd, 41513 -3- 13cv0868

Case 3:13-cv-00868-LAB-WVG Document 2 Filed 04/15/13 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

Petitioner alleges he was “punched in my face while on the ground handcuffed by 6

deputies and hit with taser 4-5 times,” which he claims was excessive force. (Pet.4, 6, 7, ECF

No. 1.) Petitioner’s claim is not cognizable on habeas because it does not challenge the

constitutional validity or duration of 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. It appears that Petitioner challenges the conditions of his

confinement, but not the fact or length of his custody. Thus, Petitioner has not stated a

cognizable habeas claim pursuant to § 2254.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the Court DISMISSES this action without prejudice and with

leave to amend. If Petitioner wishes to proceed with a 28 U.S.C. § 2254 action, he must, no

later than June 18, 2013: (1) pay the $5.00 filing fee or submit adequate proof of his inability

to pay the fee; AND (2) file a First Amended Petition that cures the pleading deficiencies

outlined in this Order. If Petitioner wishes to challenge the conditions of his confinement, he

must file a new civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 which will be given a new case

number. The Clerk of Court is directed to mail Petitioner a blank motion to proceed in forma

pauperis form, a blank First Amended Petition form, and a blank 42 U.S.C. § 1983 civil rights

complaint form together with a copy of this Order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: April 12, 2013

HONORABLE LARRY ALAN BURNS

United States District Judge

I:\Everyone\_EFILE-PROSE\LAB\13cv0868_dismiss.wpd, 41513 -4- 13cv0868

Case 3:13-cv-00868-LAB-WVG Document 2 Filed 04/15/13 Page 4 of 4