Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_13-cv-00286/USCOURTS-casd-3_13-cv-00286-0/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 

.. '.,l 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

JOSE JUAREZ, Civil No. 13-0286 BEN (PCL) 

Petitioner, 

ORDER DISMISSING CASE 

v. WITHOUT PREJUDICE AND WITH 

LEAVE TO AMEND PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF 

CALIFORNIA, 

Respondent. 

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 submit adequate proof of his 

inability to pay the fee. This Court cannot proceed until Petitioner has either paid the $5.00 

filing fee or qualified to proceed in fonna pauperis. See Rule 3(a), 28 U.S.C. foIl. § 2254. 

FAILURE TO NAME PROPER RESPONDENT 

Review ofthe 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 

-1- 13cv0286 

Case 3:13-cv-00286-BEN-PCL Document 3 Filed 02/12/13 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 

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).'" ld. (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 oj] 

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 ofthe 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 

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

at 895. 

Here, Petitioner has incorrectly named "People ofthe State ofCalifornia, " as Respondent. 

In order for this Court to entertain the Petition filed in this action, Petitioner must name the 

warden in charge ofthe 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 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 

-2- 13cv0286 

Case 3:13-cv-00286-BEN-PCL Document 3 Filed 02/12/13 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 

custody pursuant to the judgment ofa State court only on the ground that he is in 

custody m violation ofthe Constitution or laws or treaties ofthe United States. 

28 U.S.C. § 2254(a)(emphasis added); seeHernandezv. nst, 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 ofa State 

court," and that he is in custody in "violation ofthe Constitution or laws or treaties ofthe United 

States." See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a). 

In his petition, Petitioner states in claim one, that he is "respectfully moving this 

Honorable Court for an order modifYing the sentence imposed [in] the above referenced case," 

and in claim two, "the issue has not been waived" and "the trial court erred in imposing the 

maximum fine." (Pet. at 3-13, ECF No. 1.) In no way does Petitioner claim he is "in custody 

in violation ofthe Constitution or laws or treaties ofthe United States." 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 

FAILURE TO ALLEGE EXHAUSTION OF STATE JUDICIAL REMEDIES 

Further, habeas petitioners who wish to challenge either their state court conviction or the 

length oftheir 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 

ofhis or her federal rights have been violated. For example, "[i]fa habeas petitioner wishes to 

claim that an evidentiary ruling at a state court trial denied him [ or her] the due process oflaw 

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. 

-3- 13cv0286 

Case 3:13-cv-00286-BEN-PCL Document 3 Filed 02/12/13 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 

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 ofthe 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, ifthe 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, ifthe 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. § 2244(d)(1)(A)-(D) (2002). 

The statute oflimitations 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 ofthe 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. 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. 

CONCLUSION 

Forthe foregoing reasons, the Court DISMISSES the Petition without prejudice and with 

leave to amend. To have this case reopened, Petitioner must, no later than April 15, 2013: (1) 

-4- 13cv0286 

Case 3:13-cv-00286-BEN-PCL Document 3 Filed 02/12/13 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 

pay the $5.00 filing fee OR submit adequate proof ofhis inability to pay the fee, AND (2) file 

a First Amended Petition that cures the pleading deficiencies outlined in this Order. The Clerk 

ofCourt is directed to mailPetitioner a blank Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis form and 

a blank First Amended1'. tition form to Petitioner along with a copy ofthis Order. 

D. 

DATED: 

oger T. Benitez 

, 

United States District Judge 

-5- I3cv0286 

Case 3:13-cv-00286-BEN-PCL Document 3 Filed 02/12/13 Page 5 of 5