Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-00736/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-00736-2/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ALBERT LEDESMA, III,

Petitioner,

v.

KERN COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT,

Respondent.

Case No. 1:15-cv-00736-SAB HC

ORDER GRANTING PETITIONER LEAVE 

TO FILE A MOTION TO AMEND 

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

Petitioner is proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 

U.S.C. § 2254. On May 6, 2015, Petitioner filed the instant petition for writ of habeas corpus in 

this Court. (ECF No. 1). Petitioner has consented to the jurisdiction of a Magistrate Judge 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). (ECF No. 8). 

I.

DISCUSSION

A. Preliminary Review of Petition

Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases allows a district court to dismiss a 

petition if it “plainly appears from the petition and any attached exhibits that the petitioner is not 

entitled to relief in the district court . . . .” Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. 

The Advisory Committee Notes to Rule 8 indicate that the court may dismiss a petition for writ 

Case 1:15-cv-00736-SAB Document 9 Filed 07/08/15 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

2

of habeas corpus, either on its own motion under Rule 4, pursuant to the respondent’s motion to 

dismiss, or after an answer to the petition has been filed. Herbst v. Cook, 260 F.3d 1039 (9th

Cir.2001). The Ninth Circuit, in Herbst v. Cook, concluded that a district court may dismiss sua 

sponte a habeas petition on statute of limitations grounds so long as the court provides the 

petitioner adequate notice of its intent to dismiss and an opportunity to respond. 260 F.3d at 

1041-42.

B. Leave to File a Motion to Amend Petition and Name a Proper Respondent

Petitioner names “Kern County Superior Court” as the Respondent. A petitioner seeking 

habeas corpus relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 must name the state officer having custody of him 

as the respondent to the petition. Rule 2 (a) of the Rules Governing § 2254 Cases; OrtizSandoval v. Gomez, 81 F.3d 891, 894 (9th Cir. 1996); Stanley v. California Supreme Court, 21 

F.3d 359, 360 (9th Cir. 1994). Normally, the person having custody of an incarcerated petitioner 

is the warden of the prison in which the petitioner is incarcerated because the warden has "dayto-day control over" the petitioner. Brittingham v. United States, 982 F.2d 378, 379 (9th Cir. 

1992); see also, Stanley v. California Supreme Court, 21 F.3d 359, 360 (9th Cir. 1994). 

However, the chief officer in charge of state penal institutions is also appropriate. Ortiz, 81 F.3d 

at 894; Stanley, 21 F.3d at 360. 

Petitioner’s failure to name a proper respondent requires dismissal of his habeas petition 

for lack of jurisdiction. Stanley, 21 F.3d at 360; Olson v. California Adult Auth., 423 F.2d 1326, 

1326 (9th Cir. 1970). However, the Court will give Petitioner the opportunity to cure this defect 

by amending the petition to name a proper respondent, such as the Secretary of the California 

Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (“CDCR”). See West v. Louisiana, 478 F.2d 

1026, 1029 (5th Cir.1973), vacated in part on other grounds, 510 F.2d 363 (5th Cir.1975) (en 

banc) (allowing petitioner to amend petition to name proper respondent); Ashley v. State of 

Washington, 394 F.2d 125 (9th Cir. 1968) (same). In the interests of judicial economy, 

Petitioner need not file an amended petition. Instead, Petitioner may file a motion entitled 

"Motion to Amend the Petition to Name a Proper Respondent" wherein Petitioner may name the 

proper respondent in this action. Failure to amend the petition and state a proper respondent will 

Case 1:15-cv-00736-SAB Document 9 Filed 07/08/15 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

3

result in the petition being dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

C. Exhaustion

Also, it appears that Petitioner has failed to exhaust his claims in the instant petition. A 

petitioner who is in state custody proceeding with a petition for writ of habeas corpus must 

exhaust state judicial remedies. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(1). The exhaustion doctrine is based on 

comity to the state court and gives the state court the initial opportunity to correct the state's 

alleged constitutional deprivations. Coleman v. Thompson, 501 U.S. 722, 731 (1991); Rose v. 

Lundy, 455 U.S. 509, 518 (1982); Buffalo v. Sunn, 854 F.2d 1158, 1163 (9th Cir. 1988). 

A petitioner can satisfy the exhaustion requirement by providing the highest state court 

with a full and fair opportunity to consider each claim before presenting it to the federal court. 

Duncan v. Henry, 513 U.S. 364, 365 (1995); Picard v. Connor, 404 U.S. 270, 276 (1971); 

Johnson v. Zenon, 88 F.3d 828, 829 (9th Cir. 1996). A federal court will find that the highest 

state court was given a full and fair opportunity to hear a claim if the petitioner has presented the 

highest state court with the claim's factual and legal basis. Duncan, 513 U.S. at 365 (legal basis); 

Kenney v. Tamayo-Reyes, 504 U.S. 1, 8-10 (1992) (factual basis). 

Additionally, the petitioner must have specifically told the state court that he was raising 

a federal constitutional claim. Duncan, 513 U.S. at 365-66; Lyons v. Crawford, 232 F.3d 666, 

669 (9th Cir.2000), amended, 247 F.3d 904 (2001); Hiivala v. Wood, 195 F.3d 1098, 1106 (9th 

Cir.1999); Keating v. Hood, 133 F.3d 1240, 1241 (9th Cir.1998). In Duncan, the United States 

Supreme Court reiterated the rule as follows: 

In Picard v. Connor, 404 U.S. 270, 275 . . . (1971), we said that 

exhaustion of state remedies requires that petitioners "fairly 

presen[t]" federal claims to the state courts in order to give the 

State the "'opportunity to pass upon and correct alleged violations 

of the prisoners' federal rights" (some internal quotation marks 

omitted). 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. If a habeas petitioner wishes to claim 

that an evidentiary ruling at a state court trial denied him the due 

process of law guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment, he must 

say so, not only in federal court, but in state court. 

Duncan, 513 U.S. at 365-366. The Ninth Circuit examined the rule further, stating:

Case 1:15-cv-00736-SAB Document 9 Filed 07/08/15 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

4

Our rule is that a state prisoner has not "fairly presented" (and thus 

exhausted) his federal claims in state court unless he specifically 

indicated to that court that those claims were based on federal law. 

See Shumway v. Payne, 223 F.3d 982, 987-88 (9th Cir. 

2000). Since the Supreme Court's decision in Duncan, this court 

has held that the petitioner must make the federal basis of the claim 

explicit either by citing federal law or the decisions of federal 

courts, even if the federal basis is “self-evident," Gatlin v. 

Madding, 189 F.3d 882, 889 (9th Cir. 1999) (citing Anderson v. 

Harless, 459 U.S. 4, 7 . . . (1982), or the underlying claim would be 

decided under state law on the same considerations that would 

control resolution of the claim on federal grounds. Hiivala v. 

Wood, 195 F3d 1098, 1106-07 (9th Cir. 1999); Johnson v. Zenon, 

88 F.3d 828, 830-31 (9th Cir. 1996); . . . .

In Johnson, we explained that the petitioner must alert the state 

court to the fact that the relevant claim is a federal one without 

regard to how similar the state and federal standards for reviewing 

the claim may be or how obvious the violation of federal law is. 

Lyons v. Crawford, 232 F.3d 666, 668-669 (9th Cir. 2000).

A petition is a mixed petition if it contains exhausted and unexhausted claims. A mixed 

petition must be dismissed. However, if a petition contains unexhausted claims, a petitioner 

may, at his option, withdraw the unexhausted claims and go forward with the exhausted claims. 

Anthony v. Cambra, 236 F.3d 568, 574 (9th Cir. 2000) (“[D]istrict courts must provide habeas

litigants with the opportunity to amend their mixed petitions by striking unexhausted claims as 

an alternative to suffering dismissal.”). 

Here, it appears that Petitioner has not sought review of his claims in the California 

Supreme Court. Petitioner states that he was taken back to Kern County Superior Court in 

Bakersfield for a reduction of his sentence. (ECF No. 1 at 2). It appears that Petitioner is 

challenging the new sentence he received as a result of Proposition 47 and challenging his 

probation or parole. It is unclear whether Petitioner raised his claims before the California 

Supreme Court. If Petitioner has not sought relief in the California Supreme Court, the Court 

cannot proceed to the merits of those claims. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(1). It is possible, however, 

that Petitioner has presented all of his claims to the California Supreme Court and failed to 

indicate this to the Court. Thus, Petitioner must inform the Court whether each of his claims has 

been presented to the California Supreme Court, and if possible, provide the Court with a copy of 

the petition filed in the California Supreme Court that includes the claims now presented and a 

Case 1:15-cv-00736-SAB Document 9 Filed 07/08/15 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

5

file stamp showing that the petition was indeed filed in the California Supreme Court.

II.

ORDER

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Petitioner is GRANTED thirty (30) days from the date of service of this Order in 

which to file a motion to amend the instant petition and name a proper respondent;

2. Petitioner is ORDERED to SHOW CAUSE within thirty (30) days of the date of

service of this Order why the petition should not be dismissed for failure to exhaust 

state remedies.

Petitioner is forewarned that failure to follow this order will result in dismissal of the 

petition pursuant to Fed. R. Civil Proc. § 41(b) (A petitioner’s failure to prosecute or to comply 

with a court order may result in a dismissal of the action, and the dismissal operates as an 

adjudication on the merits.).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 8, 2015 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:15-cv-00736-SAB Document 9 Filed 07/08/15 Page 5 of 5