Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_13-cv-00263/USCOURTS-casd-3_13-cv-00263-0/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

ELIJAH JOHNSON, Civil No. 13cv0263-LAB (DHB)

Petitioner,

ORDER DISMISSING CASE 

v. WITHOUT PREJUDICE

UNNAMED,

Respondent.

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

Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Petitioner indicates that he is currently serving two

consecutive sentences for identical but separate cases, both imposed by state courts located in

the Central District of California, and seeks to have the sentences modified to be concurrent. 

(Pet. at 1.) The Petition is subject to dismissal because Petitioner has failed to satisfy the filing

fee requirement, failed to use a court-approved form, failed to name a proper respondent, failed

to allege exhaustion of state court remedies, failed to state a cognizable federal claim, and failed

to file his Petition in a Court with proper venue. The Court therefore dismisses the Petition

without leave to amend but without prejudice to Petitioner to proceed with his claims in the

Central District of California.

FILING FEE REQUIREMENT

Petitioner has failed to pay the $5.00 filing fee and has failed to move to proceed in forma

pauperis. The Petition is therefore subject to dismissal because this Court cannot proceed until

I:\Everyone\_EFILE-PROSE\LAB\13cv0263-Dismiss.wpd, 2513 -1- 13cv0263

Case 3:13-cv-00263-LAB-DHB Document 2 Filed 02/05/13 Page 1 of 6
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 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 USE PROPER FORM

Additionally, 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). Petitioner has not submitted his application for a writ

of habeas corpus on a court-approved form. 

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). “Typically, that person is the warden of the facility in which the petitioner

is incarcerated.” Id. 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).

Here, Petitioner has failed to name any 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 and Rehabilitation. Brittingham v. United States, 982 F.2d 378, 379

(9th Cir. 1992) (per curiam).

I:\Everyone\_EFILE-PROSE\LAB\13cv0263-Dismiss.wpd, 2513 -2- 13cv0263

Case 3:13-cv-00263-LAB-DHB Document 2 Filed 02/05/13 Page 2 of 6
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

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).

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

Supreme Court. 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).

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 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;

I:\Everyone\_EFILE-PROSE\LAB\13cv0263-Dismiss.wpd, 2513 -3- 13cv0263

Case 3:13-cv-00263-LAB-DHB Document 2 Filed 02/05/13 Page 3 of 6
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

(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).

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). 

I:\Everyone\_EFILE-PROSE\LAB\13cv0263-Dismiss.wpd, 2513 -4- 13cv0263

Case 3:13-cv-00263-LAB-DHB Document 2 Filed 02/05/13 Page 4 of 6
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

Here, Petitioner seeks to have his two state court sentences run concurrent rather than

consecutive, and to “get my term reduced for prison prior’s time.” (Pet. at 1.) In no way does

Petitioner claim he is “in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United

States.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254.

VENUE

Finally, a petition for writ of habeas corpus may be filed in the United States District

Court of either the judicial district in which the petitioner is presently confined or the judicial

district in which he was convicted and sentenced. See 28 U.S.C. § 2241(d); Braden v. 30th

Judicial Circuit Court, 410 U.S. 484, 497 (1973). Petitioner is presently confined at the

Tallahatchie County Correctional Facility in Tutweiler, Mississippi, which is within the

jurisdictional boundaries of the United States District Court for the Northern District of

Mississippi, Oxford Division. See 28 U.S.C. § 104(a)(2). Petitioner indicates that his state court

convictions occurred in Ventura County, California, and Riverside County, California, both

located in the Central District of California. See 28 U.S.C. § 84(c)(1)-(2). Any and all records,

witnesses and evidence necessaryfor the resolution of a petitioner’s contentions are more readily

available in that district. See Braden, 410 U.S. at 497, 499 n.15; Laue v. Nelson, 279 F. Supp.

265, 266 (N.D. Cal. 1968). Thus, if Petitioner wishes to proceed with his claims, he should file

a Petition in the Central District of California which cures the defects indicated above.

CONCLUSION

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 failed to satisfy the filing fee requirement, failed to use a court-approved

form, failed to name a proper respondent, failed to allege exhaustion of state court remedies,

failed to state a cognizable federal claim, and failed to file his Petition in a Court where proper 

/ / /

/ / /

I:\Everyone\_EFILE-PROSE\LAB\13cv0263-Dismiss.wpd, 2513 -5- 13cv0263

Case 3:13-cv-00263-LAB-DHB Document 2 Filed 02/05/13 Page 5 of 6
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

venue lies. Based on the foregoing, the Court DISMISSES this action without leave to amend

but without prejudice to Petitioner to file his Petition in the Central District of California.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: February 5, 2013

HONORABLE LARRY ALAN BURNS

United States District Judge

I:\Everyone\_EFILE-PROSE\LAB\13cv0263-Dismiss.wpd, 2513 -6- 13cv0263

Case 3:13-cv-00263-LAB-DHB Document 2 Filed 02/05/13 Page 6 of 6