Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-02391/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-02391-0/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

-1- 11cv2391

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

EDMUNDO PARDO RUBI, Civil No. 11cv2391-JLS (BGS)

Petitioner,

ORDER DISMISSING PETITION

v. WITHOUT PREJUDICE

T. GONZALES, Warden,

Respondent.

Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has submitted a Petition for a Writ of

Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, and has paid the filing fee. The Petition is subject

to dismissal because it has not been submitted on a court-approved form and because Petitioner

has not clearly alleged exhaustion of his state court remedies

FAILURE TO USE PROPER FORM

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(d),

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. Id.;

S. D. CAL. CIVLR HC.2(b). The application for a writ of habeas corpus submitted by Petitioner

is not on a non-approved form. 

FAILURE TO ALLEGE EXHAUSTION OF STATE COURT 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.

Case 3:11-cv-02391-JLS-BGS Document 6 Filed 10/21/11 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

-2- 11cv2391

§ 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).

Although Petitioner alleges he has exhausted his “administrative remedies,” it does not

appear that he has raised his claims in the California Supreme Court. (See Pet. at 17.) 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. Cartwright v. Cupp, 650 F.2d

1103, 1104 (9th Cir. 1981).

However, if Petitioner intends to present his claims pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 rather

than on habeas (see Pet. at 1), then exhaustion of state court remedies is not required, but

exhaustion of administrative remedies is all that is required. Challenges to the fact or duration

of confinement are properly brought in a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 2254, whereas challenges to conditions of confinement are brought pursuant to the

Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1983. See Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 488-500 (1973).

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

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

speedier release, the 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 prison life but not to the fact or length of custody. Id. at 499;

Case 3:11-cv-02391-JLS-BGS Document 6 Filed 10/21/11 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

-3- 11cv2391

McIntosh v. United States Parole Comm’n, 115 F.3d 809, 811-12 (10th Cir. 1997). It is not

entirely clear from the face of the Petition whether it is Petitioner’s intention to proceed with his

claims under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 or 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

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 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.”). 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).

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.

Case 3:11-cv-02391-JLS-BGS Document 6 Filed 10/21/11 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

-4- 11cv2391

Here, it appears plain from the Petition that Petitioner is not presently entitled to federal habeas

relief because he has not used a court-approved form and has not clearly alleged exhaustion of

state court remedies. Accordingly, the Court DISMISSES the Petition without prejudice. If

Petitioner wishes to proceed with this action, he must file a First Amended Petition on a courtapproved form which clearly alleges exhaustion of state court remedies on or before December

19, 2011. Petitioner is also free to file a separate civil rights Complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C.

§ 1983, if he wishes, which will be given a separate civil case number. The Clerk of the Court

shall send Petitioner a blank Southern District of California amended habeas petition form and

a blank Southern District of California Civil Rights Complaint form along with a copy of this

Order. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: October 21, 2011

Honorable Janis L. Sammartino

United States District Judge

Copies to: ALL PARTIES

Case 3:11-cv-02391-JLS-BGS Document 6 Filed 10/21/11 Page 4 of 4