Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-01867/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-01867-0/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 

JUSTIN COYLE, 

Petitioner, 

v. 

HONORABLE MARILYN HUFF, et aI., 

Respondents. 

Case No.: 16-1867 WQH (BLM) 

ORDER DISIMISSING CASE 

WITHOUT PREJUDICE AND WITH 

LEAVE TO AMEND 

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 pay the $5.00 filing fee and has failed to 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 SIGN PETITION 

Rule 2(c) of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases provides that "[t]he petition 

shall be typewritten or legibly handwritten and shall be signed under penalty of perjury 

by the petitioner." Rule 2(c), 28 U.S.C. foIl. § 2254 (emphasis added). Here, Petitioner 

has failed to sign the Petition. 

16-1867 WQH (BLM) 

Case 3:16-cv-01867-WQH-BLM Document 3 Filed 07/29/16 Page 1 of 4
5 

10 

15 

20 

25 

1 FAILURE TO STATE A COGNIZABLE FEDERAL CLAIM 

2 Additionally, in accordance with Rule 4 ofthe rules governing § 2254 cases, 

3 Petitioner has failed to allege that his state court conviction or sentence violates the 

4 Constitution ofthe United States. 

Title 28, United States Code, § 2254(a), sets forth the following scope ofreview 

6 for federal habeas corpus claims: 

7 The Supreme Court, a Justice thereof, a circuit judge, or a district court 

8 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 

9 ground that he is in custody in violation ofthe Constitution or laws or 

treaties ofthe United States. 

11 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a) (emphasis added). See Hernandez v. Ylst, 930 F.2d 714, 719 (9th 

12 Cir. 1991); Mannhalt v. Reed, 847 F.2d 576,579 (9th Cir. 1988); Kealohapauale v. 

13 Shimada, 800 F.2d 1463, 1464-65 (9th Cir. 1986). Thus, to present a cognizable federal 

14 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 ofthe 

16 Constitution or laws or treaties ofthe United States." See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a). 

17 Here, Petitioner claims "kidnapping by Judge Marilyn Huff' and claims that he is 

18 "crippled/handicapped and disabled from San Diego Jail conditions." (Pet at 6-7.)1 In no 

19 way does Petitioner claim he is "in custody in violation ofthe Constitution or laws or 

treaties ofthe United States." 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 

21 Further, the Court notes that Petitioner cannot simply amend his Petition to state a 

22 federal habeas claim and then refile the amended petition in this case. He must exhaust 

23 state judicial remedies before bringing his claims via federal habeas. State prisoners who 

24 wish to challenge their state court conviction must first exhaust state judicial remedies. 

26 

27 I The Court notes that Coyle currently has three open cases pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 pending in this 

28 Court: Coyle v. Zuckier, et al., 15cv2867 H (DHB), Coyle v. San Diego County Sheriff's Dept., et al., 

16cv0667 GPC (JLB), and Coyle v. Clear Channel Comm., et al., 16cv1173 LAB (KSC). 

2 

16-1867 WQH (BLM) 

Case 3:16-cv-01867-WQH-BLM Document 3 Filed 07/29/16 Page 2 of 4
5 

10 

15 

20 

25 

1 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b), (c); Granberry v. Greer, 481 U.S. 129, 133-34 (1987). To exhaust 

2 state judicial remedies, a California state prisoner must present the California Supreme 

3 Court with a fair opportunity to rule on the merits of every issue raised in his or her 

4 federal habeas petition. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b), (c); Granberry, 481 U.S. at 133-34. 

Moreover, to properly exhaust state court judicial remedies a petitioner must allege, in 

6 state court, how one or more of his or her federal rights have been violated. The Supreme 

7 Court in Duncan v. Henry, 513 U.S. 364 (1995) reasoned: "If state courts are to be given 

8 the opportunity to correct alleged violations ofprisoners , federal rights, they must surely 

9 be alerted to the fact that the prisoners are asserting claims under the United States 

Constitution." Id. at 365-66 (emphasis added). For example, "[1]f a habeas petitioner 

11 wishes to claim that an evidentiary ruling at a state court trial denied him the due process 

12 of law guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment, he must say so, not only in federal 

13 court, but in state court." Id. (emphasis added). 

14 Additionally, the Court cautions Petitioner that under the Antiterrorism and 

Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (Act), signed into law on April 24, 1996, a one-year 

16 period of limitation applies to a petition for a writ of habeas corpus by a person in 

17 custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court. The limitation period runs from the 

18 latest of: 

19 (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; 

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

22 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 

23 action; 

24 (C) the date on which the constitutional right asserted was initially 

recognized by the Supreme Court, if the right has been newly recognized 

26 by the Supreme Court and made retroactively applicable to cases on 

collateral review; or 

27 

28 / / / 

3 

16-1867 WQH (BLM) 

Case 3:16-cv-01867-WQH-BLM Document 3 Filed 07/29/16 Page 3 of 4
5 

10 

15 

20 

25 

1 (D) the date on which the factual predicate of the claim or claims 

presented could have been discovered through the exercise of due 2 diligence. 

3 

4 1128 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(l)(A)-(D) (West Supp. 2002). 

The Court also notes that the statute of limitations does not run while a properly 

6 filed state habeas corpus petition is pending. 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(2); see Nino v. Galaza, 

7 183 F.3d 1003, 1006 (9th Cir. 1999). But see Artuz v. Bennett, 531 U.S. 4, 8 (2000) 

8 (holding that "an application is 'properly filed' when its delivery and acceptance [by the 

9 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 

11 tolling, the statute of limitations does run while a federal habeas petition is pending. 

12 Duncan v. Walker, 533 U.S. 167, 181-82 (2001). 

13 CONCLUSION 

14 Based on the foregoing, the Court DISMISSES this action without prejudice and 

with leave to amend because Petitioner has failed to state a cognizable federal claim,. ~~ 

16 II have this case reopened, Petitioner must, no later than August 29, .: (1) pay the 

17 $5.00 filing fee OR submit adequate proof of his inability to pay the fee; AND (2) file a 

18 First Amended Petition that cures the pleading deficiencies set forth above. The Clerk of 

19 Court shall mail Petitioner a blank motion to proceed in forma pauperis form and a blank 

II First Amended Petition form together with a copy of this Order. 

21 IT IS SO ORDERED. 

22 

23 

II DATED: 7#~ 

United 

wi~4/ States DistrIct JUdge 

24 

26 

27 

28 

4 

1h-l 'Xh7 WOH (AT M) 

Case 3:16-cv-01867-WQH-BLM Document 3 Filed 07/29/16 Page 4 of 4