Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_08-cv-01180/USCOURTS-casd-3_08-cv-01180-0/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

K:\COMMON\CHMB_MIL\__SIGNED ORDERS\7 15 2008\08cv1180_IFPgrt&dsm_7 15 2008.wpd, 7158 -1- 08cv1180

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

BRIAN T. HILL, Civil No. 08-1180 JM (WMc)

Petitioner,

ORDER: 

(1) GRANTING APPLICATION TO

PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS; and

(2) DISMISSING CASE WITHOUT

PREJUDICE AND WITH LEAVE TO

AMEND

v.

LARRY E. SCRIBNER, Warden,

Respondent.

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

Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, together with a request to proceed in forma pauperis. 

MOTION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS

Petitioner has $0.00 on account at the California correctional institution in which he is

presently confined. Petitioner cannot afford the $5.00 filing fee. Thus, the Court GRANTS

Petitioner’s application to proceed in forma pauperis, and allows Petitioner to prosecute the

above-referenced action without being required to prepay fees or costs and without being

required to post security. The Clerk of the Court shall file the Petition for Writ of Habeas

Corpus without prepayment of the filing fee.

/ / /

/ / /

Case 3:08-cv-01180-JM-WMC Document 3 Filed 07/15/08 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

K:\COMMON\CHMB_MIL\__SIGNED ORDERS\7 15 2008\08cv1180_IFPgrt&dsm_7 15 2008.wpd, 7158 -2- 08cv1180

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). 

Although Petitioner alleges various errors in the resolution of his prison disciplinary

proceeding, 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.

Further, the Court notes that Petitioner cannot simply amend his Petition to state a federal

habeas claim and then refile the amended petition in this case. He must exhaust state judicial

remedies before bringing his claims via federal habeas. State prisoners who wish to challenge

their state court conviction 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. See 28 U.S.C.

§ 2254(b), (c); Granberry, 481 U.S. at 133-34. Moreover, to properly exhaust state court

judicial 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 the due process of law guaranteed by the

Case 3:08-cv-01180-JM-WMC Document 3 Filed 07/15/08 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

K:\COMMON\CHMB_MIL\__SIGNED ORDERS\7 15 2008\08cv1180_IFPgrt&dsm_7 15 2008.wpd, 7158 -3- 08cv1180

Fourteenth Amendment, he must say so, not only in federal court, but in state court.” Duncan

v. Henry, 513 U.S. 364, 365-66 (1995).

Additionally, the Court cautions Petitioner that under the Antiterrorism and Effective

Death Penalty Act of 1996 (Act), signed into law on April 24, 1996, 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. § 2244(d)(1)(A)-(D) (West Supp. 2002).

The Court also notes that 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), cert. denied, 529 U.S. 1104 (2000). 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).

FAILURE TO NAME PROPER RESPONDENT

Review of the Petition also reveals that Petitioner has failed to name a proper respondent.

On federal habeas, a state prisoner must name the state officer having custody of him as the

respondent. Ortiz-Sandoval v. Gomez, 81 F.3d 891, 894 (9th Cir. 1996) (citing Rule 2(a), 28

Case 3:08-cv-01180-JM-WMC Document 3 Filed 07/15/08 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

K:\COMMON\CHMB_MIL\__SIGNED ORDERS\7 15 2008\08cv1180_IFPgrt&dsm_7 15 2008.wpd, 7158 -4- 08cv1180

U.S.C. foll. § 2254). Federal courts lack personal jurisdiction when a habeas petition fails to

name a proper respondent. See id.

The warden is the typical respondent. However, “the rules following section 2254 do not

specify the warden.” Id. “[T]he ‘state officer having custody’ may be ‘either the warden of the

institution in which the petitioner is incarcerated . . . or the chief officer in charge of state penal

institutions.’” Id. (quoting Rule 2(a), 28 U.S.C. foll. § 2254 advisory committee’s note). If “a

petitioner is in custody due to the state action he is challenging, ‘[t]he named respondent shall

be the state officer who has official custody of the petitioner (for example, the warden of the

prison).’” Id. (quoting Rule 2, 28 U.S.C. foll. § 2254 advisory committee’s note).

A long standing rule in the Ninth Circuit holds “that a petitioner may not seek [a writ of]

habeas corpus against the State under . . . [whose] authority . . . the petitioner is in custody. The

actual person who is [the] custodian [of the petitioner] must be the respondent.” Ashley v.

Washington, 394 F.2d 125, 126 (9th Cir. 1968). This requirement exists because a writ of

habeas corpus acts upon the custodian of the state prisoner, the person who will produce “the

body” if directed to do so by the Court. “Both the warden of a California prison and the Director

of Corrections for California have the power to produce the prisoner.” Ortiz-Sandoval, 81 F.3d

at 895.

Here, Petitioner has incorrectly named “Larry E. Scribner,” as Respondent. In order for

this Court to entertain the Petition filed in this action, Petitioner must name the warden in charge

of the state correctional facility in which Petitioner is presently confined or the Director of the

California Department of Corrections. Brittingham v. United States, 982 F.2d 378, 379 (9th Cir.

1992) (per curiam). 

CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, the Court GRANTS Petitioner’s motion to proceed in forma

pauperis and DISMISSES this action without prejudice and with leave to amend. To have this

case reopened, Petitioner must, no later than September 15, 2008, file a First Amended Petition

/ / /

/ / /

Case 3:08-cv-01180-JM-WMC Document 3 Filed 07/15/08 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

K:\COMMON\CHMB_MIL\__SIGNED ORDERS\7 15 2008\08cv1180_IFPgrt&dsm_7 15 2008.wpd, 7158 -5- 08cv1180

that cures the pleading deficiencies set forth above. THE CLERK OF COURT IS

DIRECTED TO MAIL PETITIONER A BLANK FIRST AMENDED PETITION FORM

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: July 15, 2008

 Hon. Jeffrey T. Miller

 United States District Judge

Case 3:08-cv-01180-JM-WMC Document 3 Filed 07/15/08 Page 5 of 5