Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_12-cv-00788/USCOURTS-casd-3_12-cv-00788-0/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

TABA KARRON HERBERT, Civil No. 12-0788 LAB (WVG)

Petitioner,

ORDER DISMISSING CASE 

WITHOUT PREJUDICE AND WITH

LEAVE TO AMEND

v.

M. BITER, Warden

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

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 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. 

K:\COMMON\EVERYONE\_EFILE-PROSE\LAB\12cv0788_dismiss.wpd, 4612 -1- 12cv0788

Case 3:12-cv-00788-LAB-WVG Document 2 Filed 04/06/12 Page 1 of 4
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). 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) (citations omitted). 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. The documents contained in the petition indicate he has submitted the claims

in his petition to the San Diego Superior Court and the California Court of Appeal for the Fourth

Appellate District, Division One. (See Pet. at 2-4.) 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;

(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

K:\COMMON\EVERYONE\_EFILE-PROSE\LAB\12cv0788_dismiss.wpd, 4612 -2- 12cv0788

Case 3:12-cv-00788-LAB-WVG Document 2 Filed 04/06/12 Page 2 of 4
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 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.

FAILURE TO STATE A COGNIZABLE FEDERAL CLAIM 

Moreover, 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) (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

K:\COMMON\EVERYONE\_EFILE-PROSE\LAB\12cv0788_dismiss.wpd, 4612 -3- 12cv0788

Case 3:12-cv-00788-LAB-WVG Document 2 Filed 04/06/12 Page 3 of 4
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). 

Here, Petitioner claims that “during sentencing of my court proceedings the judge

imposed a restitution fine of $10,000 but never held a hearing to determine if I had the ability

to pay such a large amount of money.” (Pet. at 1.) This, he alleges, violates California law. (Id.

at 6-14.) In no way does Petitioner claim he is “in custody in violation of the Constitution or

laws or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254.

CONCLUSION

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

leave to amend. If Petitioner wishes to proceed with this case, he must submit, no later than

June 11, 2012: (1) a copy of this Order with the $5.00 fee OR with adequate proof of his

inability to pay the fee; AND (2) a First Amended Petition that cures the pleading deficiencies

outlined in this Order. The Clerk of Court is directed to mail a blank In Forma Pauperis

Application and a blank First Amended Petition form to Petitioner along with a copy of this

Order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: April 5, 2012

HONORABLE LARRY ALAN BURNS

United States District Judge

K:\COMMON\EVERYONE\_EFILE-PROSE\LAB\12cv0788_dismiss.wpd, 4612 -4- 12cv0788

Case 3:12-cv-00788-LAB-WVG Document 2 Filed 04/06/12 Page 4 of 4