Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_10-cv-01565/USCOURTS-casd-3_10-cv-01565-0/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\WQH\10cv1565_dismiss.wpd, 10510 -1- 10cv1565

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JAIME PEREA, Civil No. 10-1565 WQH (RBB)

Petitioner,

ORDER DISMISSING CASE WITHOUT

PREJUDICE AND WITH LEAVE TO

AMEND

v.

IMPERIAL COUNTY,

Respondent.

On July 23, 2010, Petitioner, proceeding pro se, paid the $5.00 filing fee and submitted

a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. After reviewing the petition,

the Court construed it as one filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 and dismissed the petition

without prejudice and with leave to amend because Petitioner had failed to name a proper

respondent. (See Order dated Sept. 21, 2010 [doc. no. 4].) Petitioner was given until November

15, 2010, to file a First Amended Petition that cured the pleading deficiencies outlined in the

Court’s Order. (Id.)

On September 30, 2010, Petitioner filed a document which the Court construed as a First

Amended Petition, and which has now become the operative pleading in this case. (See doc. no.

6.) 

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

Case 3:10-cv-01565-RBB Document 7 Filed 10/05/10 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

K:\COMMON\EVERYONE\_EFILE-PROSE\WQH\10cv1565_dismiss.wpd, 10510 -2- 10cv1565

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 nonapproved form. 

FAILURE TO NAME PROPER RESPONDENT

Review of the Petition reveals that Petitioner has again 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.

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).

A long standing rule in the Ninth Circuit holds “that a petitioner may not seek [a writ of]

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 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.

Case 3:10-cv-01565-RBB Document 7 Filed 10/05/10 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

K:\COMMON\EVERYONE\_EFILE-PROSE\WQH\10cv1565_dismiss.wpd, 10510 -3- 10cv1565

Here, Petitioner has incorrectly named “Imperial County,” as 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. Brittingham v. United States, 982 F.2d 378, 379 (9th Cir.

1992) (per curiam).

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). 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) (citing Picard v. Connor, 404

U.S. 270, 275 (1971); Anderson v. Harless, 459 U.S. 4, 6 (1982)). 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. 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.” 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. If Petitioner has raised his claims in the California Supreme Court he must so

specify. 

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;

/ / /

Case 3:10-cv-01565-RBB Document 7 Filed 10/05/10 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

K:\COMMON\EVERYONE\_EFILE-PROSE\WQH\10cv1565_dismiss.wpd, 10510 -4- 10cv1565

(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 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.

CONCLUSION

For all the foregoing reasons, the Court DISMISSES this case without prejudice and with

leave to amend. If Petitioner wishes to pursue this case, he must, no later than December 6,

2010, file a Second Amended Petition that cures the pleading deficiencies outlined in this Order.

/ / / 

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

Case 3:10-cv-01565-RBB Document 7 Filed 10/05/10 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

K:\COMMON\EVERYONE\_EFILE-PROSE\WQH\10cv1565_dismiss.wpd, 10510 -5- 10cv1565

THE CLERK OF COURT IS DIRECTED TO MAIL PETITIONER A BLANK SECOND

AMENDED PETITION FORM TOGETHER WITH A COPY OF THIS ORDER.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: October 5, 2010

WILLIAM Q. HAYES

United States District Judge

Case 3:10-cv-01565-RBB Document 7 Filed 10/05/10 Page 5 of 5