Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-02766/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-02766-0/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\BATTAGLI\DJ CASES\2 Orders to be filed\11cv2766 dismiss.wpd, 12511 -1-

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

BARRY JAMES, Civil No. 11-2766 AJB (PCL)

Petitioner,

ORDER DISMISSING CASE 

WITHOUT PREJUDICE AND WITH

LEAVE TO AMEND

v.

UNKNOWN, 

Respondent.

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. 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. 

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). Federal courts lack personal jurisdiction when a habeas petition fails to

name a proper respondent. See id.

Case 3:11-cv-02766-AJB-PCL Document 2 Filed 12/05/11 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

K:\COMMON\BATTAGLI\DJ CASES\2 Orders to be filed\11cv2766 dismiss.wpd, 12511 -2-

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 not named a 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). 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:

Case 3:11-cv-02766-AJB-PCL Document 2 Filed 12/05/11 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

K:\COMMON\BATTAGLI\DJ CASES\2 Orders to be filed\11cv2766 dismiss.wpd, 12511 -3-

“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).

Nowhere on the Petition does Petitioner allege that he raised his claims in the California

Supreme Court. In fact, he specifically indicates he did not seek review in the California

Supreme Court. (See Pet. at 4) 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 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

Case 3:11-cv-02766-AJB-PCL Document 2 Filed 12/05/11 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

K:\COMMON\BATTAGLI\DJ CASES\2 Orders to be filed\11cv2766 dismiss.wpd, 12511 -4-

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.

FAILURE TO STATE A COGNIZABLE CLAIM ON HABEAS CORPUS

Upon review of the Petition, it appears to the Court that a Petition for Writ of Habeas

Corpus brought pursuant to § 2254 is not the proper vehicle for the claims Petitioner presents.

Petitioner lists various medical problems he claims he is facing in prison. Specifically, Petitioner

claims that he has “two orthopedic hips [and] pins in his lower back” which cause him pain

when walking and that he struggles with his physicians. (Pet. at 6-9.) Petitioner’s claims are

not cognizable on habeas because they do not challenge the constitutional validity or duration

of confinement. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a); Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 500 (1973); Heck

v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 480-85 (1994). “Section 2254 applies only to collateral attacks on

state court judgments.” McGuire v. Blubaum, 376 F. Supp. 284, 285 (D. Ariz. 1974).

In no way does Petitioner claim his state court conviction violates the Constitution or laws

or treaties of the United States. 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 is plain from the petition that Petitioner is not presently entitled

to federal habeas relief because he has not alleged that the state court violated his federal rights.

Case 3:11-cv-02766-AJB-PCL Document 2 Filed 12/05/11 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

K:\COMMON\BATTAGLI\DJ CASES\2 Orders to be filed\11cv2766 dismiss.wpd, 12511 -5-

Challenges to the fact or duration of confinement are brought by petition for a writ of

habeas corpus, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254; challenges to conditions of confinement are

brought pursuant to the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1983. See Preiser, 411 U.S. at 488-500.

When a state prisoner is challenging the very fact or duration of his physical imprisonment, and

the relief he seeks is a determination that he is entitled to immediate release or a speedier release

from that imprisonment, his sole federal remedy is a writ of habeas corpus. Id. at 500. On the

other hand, a § 1983 action is a proper remedy for a state prisoner who is making a constitutional

challenge to the conditions of his prison life, but not to the fact or length of his custody. Id. at

499; McIntosh v. United States Parole Comm’n, 115 F.3d 809, 811-12 (10th Cir. 1997). It

appears that Petitioner challenges the conditions of his prison life, but not the fact or length of

his custody. Thus, Petitioner has not stated a cognizable habeas claim pursuant to § 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. foll. § 2254 (emphasis added). Here, Petitioner has failed to

sign the Petition. 

//

//

//

//

//

//

//

//

//

//

//

//

Case 3:11-cv-02766-AJB-PCL Document 2 Filed 12/05/11 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

K:\COMMON\BATTAGLI\DJ CASES\2 Orders to be filed\11cv2766 dismiss.wpd, 12511 -6-

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Based on the foregoing, the Court DISMISSES the case without prejudice and with leave

to amend. If Petitioner wishes to challenge the fact or duration of his confinement by attacking

his state court conviction, he must, no later than February 7, 2012: (1) file a First Amended

Petition that cures the pleading deficiencies noted above AND (2) pay the $5.00 filing fee OR

submit adequate proof of his inability to pay the fee. If he wishes to challenge the conditions

of his prison life, he must, no later than February 7, 2012: (1) file a new civil complaint

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 which will be given a new civil case number, AND (2) pay the

$350 filing fee OR file a motion to proceed in forma pauperis . THE CLERK OF COURT IS

DIRECTED TO MAIL PETITIONER A BLANK MOTION TO PROCEED IN FORMA

PAUPERIS, A BLANK FIRST AMENDED HABEAS CORPUS PETITION FORM (28

U.S.C. § 2254) AND A BLANK 42 U.S.C. § 1983 CIVIL COMPLAINT FORM

TOGETHER WITH A COPY OF THIS ORDER. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: December 5, 2011

Hon. Anthony J. Battaglia

U.S. District Judge

Case 3:11-cv-02766-AJB-PCL Document 2 Filed 12/05/11 Page 6 of 6