Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_07-cv-01925/USCOURTS-casd-3_07-cv-01925-0/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

 The petition was originally filed with United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit on

August 6, 2007. The Ninth Circuit ordered the case transferred to this Court on October 1, 2007.

K:\COMMON\EVERYONE\_EFILE-PROSE\WQH\07cv1925-dismiss.wpd, 10167 -1-

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

KEVIN D. WALKER, Civil No. 07-1925 WQH (BLM)

Petitioner,

ORDER DISMISSING CASE 

WITHOUT PREJUDICE AND WITH

LEAVE TO AMEND

v.

BEN CURRY, 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, but has failed to pay the $5.00 filing fee and has failed to

move to proceed in forma pauperis.1

 

FAILURE TO SATISFY THE 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 December 11, 2007, a copy of this Order with the $5.00 fee or with adequate

proof of his inability to pay the fee. 

/ / /

/ / /

Case 3:07-cv-01925-WQH-BLM Document 2 Filed 10/16/07 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

K:\COMMON\EVERYONE\_EFILE-PROSE\WQH\07cv1925-dismiss.wpd, 10167 -2-

FAILURE TO ALLEGE EXHAUSTION

Additionally, the petition must be dismissed because Petitioner has failed to allege

exhaustion of state judicial remedies. 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).

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 5-6.) 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

Case 3:07-cv-01925-WQH-BLM Document 2 Filed 10/16/07 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

K:\COMMON\EVERYONE\_EFILE-PROSE\WQH\07cv1925-dismiss.wpd, 10167 -3-

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

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.

CONCLUSION

Therefore, the Petition is DISMISSED without prejudice and with leave to amend for

failing satisfy the filing fee requirement and failing to allege exhaustion of state judicial

remedies. In order to have this case reopened, Petition must, no later than December 11, 2007,

(1) either pay the filing fee or provide adequate proof of his inability to pay, and (2) file a First

/ / /

/ / /

Case 3:07-cv-01925-WQH-BLM Document 2 Filed 10/16/07 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

K:\COMMON\EVERYONE\_EFILE-PROSE\WQH\07cv1925-dismiss.wpd, 10167 -4-

Amended Petition, curing the pleading deficiency discussed above. For Petitioner’s

convenience, the Clerk of Court shall attach to this Order, a blank Southern District of

California In Forma Pauperis Application and a blank First Amended Petition form.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: October 16, 2007

WILLIAM Q. HAYES

United States District Judge

Case 3:07-cv-01925-WQH-BLM Document 2 Filed 10/16/07 Page 4 of 4