Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_13-cv-01457/USCOURTS-casd-3_13-cv-01457-0/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

JOAQUIN MURRIETTA MARTINEZ, Civil No. 13cv1457-BTM (WVG)

Petitioner,

ORDER DISMISSING CASE 

WITHOUT PREJUDICE

v.

UNNAMED,

Respondent.

Petitioner, a San Diego County Jail inmate, is proceeding pro se with a Petition for a Writ

of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, challenging a state court conviction. This

action is subject to dismissal because Petitioner has failed to satisfy the filing fee requirement,

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

Accordingly, the Court dismisses the Petition without prejudice and with leave to amend.

FILING FEE REQUIREMENT

Because this Court cannot proceed until Petitioner has either paid the $5.00 filing fee or

qualified to proceed in forma pauperis, the Court DISMISSES the case without prejudice. See

Rule 3(a), 28 U.S.C. foll. § 2254. If Petitioner wishes to proceed with this case, he must submit,

no later than September 3, 2013, a copy of this Order with the $5.00 fee or with adequate proof

of his inability to pay the fee. A blank Southern District of California in forma pauperis

application will be provided to Petitioner along with a copy of this Order.

I:\Everyone\_EFILE-PROSE\BTM\13cv1457-Dismiss.wpd, 7813 -1- 13cv1457

Case 3:13-cv-01457-BTM-WVG Document 2 Filed 07/08/13 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

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).

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.

Here, Petitioner has failed to name a Respondent. In order for this Court to entertain the

Petition filed in this action, Petitioner must name the officer or warden in charge of the jail or

state correctional facility in which Petitioner is presently confined or the Director of the

California Department ofCorrections and Rehabilitation. Brittinghamv. United States, 982 F.2d

378, 379 (9th Cir. 1992) (per curiam).

/ / /

I:\Everyone\_EFILE-PROSE\BTM\13cv1457-Dismiss.wpd, 7813 -2- 13cv1457

Case 3:13-cv-01457-BTM-WVG Document 2 Filed 07/08/13 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).

The Petition lists two claims. (See Pet. at 6-7.) The first ground for relief, which

Petitioner contends he has presented to the state supreme court (id. at 6), consists merely of a

statement that Petitioner is entitled to various rights under the federal Constitution, but contains

no supporting facts and does not allege that Petitioner was deprived of any of the listed rights. 

(Pet. at 6.) 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

I:\Everyone\_EFILE-PROSE\BTM\13cv1457-Dismiss.wpd, 7813 -3- 13cv1457

Case 3:13-cv-01457-BTM-WVG Document 2 Filed 07/08/13 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

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). With respect to ground one, which is the only claim

Petitioner indicates he has presented to the state supreme court, Petitioner does not claim that

he is “in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.” 28

U.S.C. § 2254. Ground one therefore does not present a federal claim.

The second ground for relief, which Petitioner contends has not been presented to the

state supreme court (Pet. at 7), contains factual allegations which, liberally construed, present

a claim for violation of Petitioner’s federal Constitutional right to the effective assistance of

counsel. (See id.) Accordingly, the only claim for relief presented in the Petition (ground two)

has not, according to Petitioner, been presented to the state supreme court. 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). Here, Petitioner has not alleged exhaustion of state court remedies

with respect to any federal claim presented in the Petition. He has therefore failed to allege

exhaustion as to any claim presented in the Petition, and the Petition is subject to dismissal. See

Rasberry v. Garcia, 448 F.3d 1150, 1154 (9th Cir. 2006) (“Once a district court determines that

a habeas petition contains only unexhausted claims, it need not inquire further into the

petitioner’s intentions. Instead, it may simply dismiss the habeas petition for failure to

exhaust.”), citing Jiminez v. Rice, 276 F.3d 478, 481 (9th Cir. 2001). 

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 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;

(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

I:\Everyone\_EFILE-PROSE\BTM\13cv1457-Dismiss.wpd, 7813 -4- 13cv1457

Case 3:13-cv-01457-BTM-WVG Document 2 Filed 07/08/13 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

(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.”); Bonner v. Carey, 425

F.3d 1145, 1149 (9th Cir. 2005) (holding that a state application for post-conviction relief which

is ultimately dismissed as untimely was neither “properly filed” nor “pending” while it was

under consideration by the state court, and therefore does not toll the statute of limitations), as

amended 439 F.3d 993. However, absent some other basis for tolling, the statute of limitations

runs 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, and failed to

allege exhaustion of state judicial remedies. 

To have this case reopened, Petitioner must, no later than September 3, 2013, pay the

$5.00 filing fee or submit adequate proof of his inability to pay the fee, and file a First Amended

Petition that cures the pleading deficiencies set forth above. The Clerk of Court shall send

Petitioner a blank Southern District of California amended petition form and a blank Southern

District of California in forma pauperis application along with a copy of this Order. 

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

I:\Everyone\_EFILE-PROSE\BTM\13cv1457-Dismiss.wpd, 7813 -5- 13cv1457

Case 3:13-cv-01457-BTM-WVG Document 2 Filed 07/08/13 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

Petitioner is advised that if he has not submitted a First Amended Petition alleging

exhaustion ofstate court remedies before September 3, 2013, he will have to start over by filing

a completely new habeas petition in this Court which will be given a new civil case number. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: July 8, 2013

BARRY TED MOSKOWITZ, Chief Judge

United States District Court

CC: ALL PARTIES

I:\Everyone\_EFILE-PROSE\BTM\13cv1457-Dismiss.wpd, 7813 -6- 13cv1457

Case 3:13-cv-01457-BTM-WVG Document 2 Filed 07/08/13 Page 6 of 6