Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_19-cv-00108/USCOURTS-casd-3_19-cv-00108-0/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

19cv0108 GPC (BLM)

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

KARL J. RUSSELL,

Petitioner,

v.

T. FOSS, Warden,

Respondent.

Case No.: 19cv0108 GPC (BLM)

ORDER DISMISSING CASE 

WITHOUT PREJUDICE AND WITH 

LEAVE TO AMEND

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 THE 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. In order to have this case 

reopened, Petitioner must either pay the filing fee or provide adequate proof of his 

inability to pay, no later than March 27, 2019.

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

Case 3:19-cv-00108-GPC-BLM Document 2 Filed 01/25/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 5
2

19cv0108 GPC (BLM)

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 STATE A COGNIZABLE FEDERAL CLAIM

Additionally, 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 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 “I failed to understand this case and the lawyer took 

advantage of this and lied in this case on how the outcome would be.” He further states 

that he “would like to get this case back into the court for a recall motion and to go 

forward in a trial or a resentencing.” 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. 

Accordingly, it appears plain from the Petition that Petitioner is not presently 

entitled to federal habeas relief because he has stated a cognizable federal claim. See Rule 

4, 28 U.S.C. foll. § 2254. 

FAILURE TO ALLEGE EXHAUSTION OF STATE JUDICIAL REMEDIES

Additionally, habeas petitioners who wish to challenge either their state court 

conviction or the length of their confinement in state prison, must first exhaust state 

Case 3:19-cv-00108-GPC-BLM Document 2 Filed 01/25/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 5
3

19cv0108 GPC (BLM)

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

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 such review. 

(See Pet. at 6, ECF No. 1.) 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;

Case 3:19-cv-00108-GPC-BLM Document 2 Filed 01/25/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 5
4

19cv0108 GPC (BLM)

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

(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. § 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).

As noted above, 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

Based on the foregoing, the Court DISMISSES this action without prejudice 

because Petitioner has failed satisfy the filing fee requirement, failed to state a cognizable 

federal claim and failed to allege exhaustion of state judicial remedies. To have this case 

reopened, Petitioner must (1) either pay the filing fee or provide adequate proof of his 

Case 3:19-cv-00108-GPC-BLM Document 2 Filed 01/25/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 5
5

19cv0108 GPC (BLM)

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

inability to pay and (2) filed a First Amended Petition that cures the pleading deficiencies

outlined above, no later than March 27, 2019. For Petitioner’s convenience, a blank First 

Amended Petition and a blank In Forma Pauperis Application are included with this Order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 25, 2019

Case 3:19-cv-00108-GPC-BLM Document 2 Filed 01/25/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 5 of 5