Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_08-cv-00652/USCOURTS-casd-3_08-cv-00652-0/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\EVERYONE\_EFILE-PROSE\L\08cv0652 dismiss.wpd, 4178 -1-

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOSEPH HILTON MCDONALD, Civil No. 08-0652 L (PCL)

Petitioner,

ORDER DENYING IN FORMA

PAUPERIS APPLICATION AND

DISMISSING CASE WITHOUT

PREJUDICE

v.

HAAWS, Warden,

Respondent.

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

to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The Petition is DISMISSED for the following reasons.

FAILURE TO SATISFY FILING FEE REQUIREMENT

Petitioner has filed a request to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). The

request to proceed in forma pauperis is denied because Petitioner has not provided the Court with

sufficient information to determine Petitioner’s financial status. A request to proceed in forma pauperis

made by a state prisoner must include a certificate from the warden or other appropriate officer showing

the amount of money or securities Petitioner has on account in the institution. Rule 3(a)(2), 28 U.S.C.

foll. § 2254; Local Rule 3.2. Here, Petitioner has provided the Court with an unsigned and incomplete

Prison Certificate which is insufficient to determine whether or not he is able to pay the filing fee. 

//

Case 3:08-cv-00652-CAB-PCL Document 3 Filed 04/17/08 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

K:\COMMON\EVERYONE\_EFILE-PROSE\L\08cv0652 dismiss.wpd, 4178 -2-

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).

Here, Petitioner specifically indicates he did not seek review for all of his claims in the

California Supreme Court. (See Pet. at 26.) 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.” Matthews v. Evatt, 105 F.3d 907, 911 (4th Cir. 1997); see Breard v. Pruett, 134 F.3d 615,

619 (4th Cir. 1998); Lambert v. Blackwell, 134 F.3d 506, 513 (3d Cir. 1997); Oyler v. Allenbrand, 23

F.3d 292, 300 (10th Cir. 1994); Rust v. Zent, 17 F.3d 155, 160 (6th Cir. 1994).

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;

(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

Case 3:08-cv-00652-CAB-PCL Document 3 Filed 04/17/08 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

K:\COMMON\EVERYONE\_EFILE-PROSE\L\08cv0652 dismiss.wpd, 4178 -3-

 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).

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 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. 

Petitioner acknowledges that he has unexhausted claims within his Petition, and requests that

this Court hold the claims in abeyance while he exhausts them in state court. (Pet. at 26.) In light of the

Court’s dismissal of his Petition, the Court does not reach this request. Should Petitioner wish to revive

his request, he is advised that he may submit a Motion for Stay and Abeyance, along with a First

Amended Petition. 

//

//

//

//

Case 3:08-cv-00652-CAB-PCL Document 3 Filed 04/17/08 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

K:\COMMON\EVERYONE\_EFILE-PROSE\L\08cv0652 dismiss.wpd, 4178 -4-

FAILURE TO USE PROPER FORM

Additionally, a Petition for 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(c),

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. Presently,

Petitioner has submitted an application for writ of habeas corpus on a non-approved form.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Accordingly, the Court DENIES the request to proceed in forma pauperis, and DISMISSES the

case without prejudice for Petitioner’s failure to (1) satisfy the filing fee requirement; (2) allege

exhaustion of state judicial remedies; and (3) use the proper form. To have the case reopened,

Petitioner must, no later than June 20, 2008, provide the Court with: (1) a First Amended Petition on

a Court approved form; AND (2) a copy of this Order together with the $5.00 filing fee; OR (2) a copy

of this Order together with adequate proof that Petitioner cannot pay the $5.00 filing fee. The Clerk

of the Court is directed to send Petitioner a blank First Amended Petition form, and a blank

Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis form, along with this Order. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: April 17, 2008

M. James Lorenz

United States District Court Judge

Case 3:08-cv-00652-CAB-PCL Document 3 Filed 04/17/08 Page 4 of 4