Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_19-cv-01320/USCOURTS-casd-3_19-cv-01320-0/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 

19cv1320

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

DWAYNE RUSSELL CONYERS,

Petitioner,

v. 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, 

Respondent.

Case No. 19cv1320-BAS-AHG

ORDER DISMISSING CASE 

WITHOUT PREJUDICE 

Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a Petition for a Writ of Habeas 

Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. (ECF No. 1.) The Petition is subject to dismissal 

without prejudice because Petitioner has failed to satisfy the filing fee requirement, failed 

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

to state a claim cognizable on federal habeas. 

FILING FEE REQUIREMENT

Petitioner has failed to pay the $5.00 filing fee or submit a request 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. 

FAILURE 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 

Case 3:19-cv-01320-BAS-AHG Document 3 Filed 10/02/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 6
2

19cv1320

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

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). This requirement exists because a writ of habeas corpus acts 

upon the custodian of the state prisoner, the person who will produce “the body” if directed 

to do so by the Court. “Both the warden of a California prison and the Director of 

Corrections for California have the power to produce the prisoner.” Ortiz-Sandoval, 81 

F.3d at 895.

Here, Petitioner has named the United States District Court as Respondent. In order 

for this Court to entertain the Petition, Petitioner must name the warden in charge of the 

state correctional facility in which he is presently confined or the Secretary of the California

Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. Brittingham v. United States, 982 F.2d 378, 

379 (9th Cir. 1992) (per curiam).

EXHAUSTION OF STATE COURT REMEDIES

Federal 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 

Case 3:19-cv-01320-BAS-AHG Document 3 Filed 10/02/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 6
3

19cv1320

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

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). 

Petitioner states that he has presented his claims only to the state superior court (ECF 

No. 1 at 5-8, 3-14), and there is no indication that he has presented his claims to the state 

supreme court. If Petitioner has raised his claims in the California Supreme Court he must 

so specify. The burden of proving a claim has been exhausted lies with Petitioner. 

Cartwright v. Cupp, 650 F.2d 1103, 1104 (9th Cir. 1981).

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). 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.” Id.

Here, Petitioner challenges the denial by the state superior court of his petition for a 

modification of his sentence under Senate Bill 1393, which provides discretion to trial 

Case 3:19-cv-01320-BAS-AHG Document 3 Filed 10/02/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 6
4

19cv1320

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

courts to strike or dismiss in the interests of justice prior serious or violent felony 

convictions used to enhance sentences. (ECF No. 1 at 3, 13-14.) Petitioner claims the state 

court erred in refusing to strike his two five-year enhancements, apparently on the basis 

that the court refused to recognize that his robbery convictions are nonviolent offenses, but 

in no way does he claim he is “in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties 

of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a). Although he includes citations to federal cases 

providing guidance in determining whether certain state crimes are considered violent 

crimes within the meaning of federal statutes (see ECF No. 1 at 3, 12), his state court 

petition for resentencing was denied because he was not eligible for relief since his 

conviction was final prior to enactment of Senate Bill 1393 (id. at 13-14), and he does not 

indicate why, or if, he contends he is “in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or 

treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a). 

The Court cautions Petitioner that a one-year period of limitation applies 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 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 2019).

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 

Case 3:19-cv-01320-BAS-AHG Document 3 Filed 10/02/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 6
5

19cv1320

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

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).

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

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. Based on the foregoing, the Court DISMISSES this action without prejudice 

because Petitioner has failed to satisfy the filing fee requirement, failed to name a proper 

respondent, failed to allege exhaustion of state judicial remedies and failed to state a 

cognizable federal claim. To have this case reopened, Petitioner must either pay the filing 

fee or submit an application to proceed in forma pauperis and file a First Amended Petition 

that cures the pleading deficiencies set forth above no later than December 2, 2019. 

The Court notes that Petitioner is currently proceeding with a habeas petition in this 

Court in So.Dist.Ca. Civil Case No. 18cv0085-JLS (KSC), in which he challenges the state 

court conviction upon which the sentence he petitioned the state court to modify is based, 

the denial of which he challenges in this action, and which is currently stayed pending 

exhaustion of state court remedies. See Order filed 1/29/18 [ECF No. 18] in So.Dist.Ca. 

Civil Case No. 18cv0085-JLS (KSC). Petitioner currently has pending a motion to amend 

in that case, see Motion to Amend filed 8/16/19 [ECF No. 21] in So.Dist.Ca. Civil Case 

No. 18cv0085-JLS (KSC), in which he seeks to include a claim which, like the one raised 

here, was unexhausted when he filed his federal petition in that case. Compare id. at 6-9 

with Pet. filed 1/12/18 [ECF No. 1] at 6-9 in So.Dist.Ca. Civil Case No. 18cv0085-JLS 

(KSC). Rather than file an amended petition in this case, Petitioner may seek leave to 

amend or supplement his petition in that first case to include the claim raised here which

/ / /

Case 3:19-cv-01320-BAS-AHG Document 3 Filed 10/02/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 5 of 6
6

19cv1320

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

apparently rose after he initiated the first case and, like the claim he seeks to amend to add 

in the first case, was not exhausted at the time he filed that first petition.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: October 2, 2019

Case 3:19-cv-01320-BAS-AHG Document 3 Filed 10/02/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 6 of 6