Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_10-cv-00665/USCOURTS-casd-3_10-cv-00665-0/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 :\C O M M O N \E V E R Y O N E \_EFILE-PRO SE\D M S \10cv0665-G rant& D ism iss.w pd, 33010 -1- 10cv0665

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

REGINALD R. WILLIAMS, Civil No. 10cv0665-DMS (WVG)

Petitioner,

ORDER GRANTING APPLICATION

TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS

AND DISMISSING PETITION

WITHOUT PREJUDICE

v.

GARY SANDOR, 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, together with a request to proceed in forma

pauperis. Petitioner has $0.04 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 as a poor person without being required to prepay fees or costs and

without being required to post security. 

However, review of the Petition indicates that is it subject to dismissal without prejudice

because Petitioner has failed to allege exhaustion of state court 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

Case 3:10-cv-00665-DMS-WVG Document 3 Filed 03/30/10 Page 1 of 3
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 :\C O M M O N \E V E R Y O N E \_EFILE-PRO SE\D M S \10cv0665-G rant& D ism iss.w pd, 33010 -2- 10cv0665

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).

Here, Petitioner has not indicated whether he has exhausted state judicial remedies. If

Petitioner has raised his claims in the California Supreme Court he must so specify. The burden

of pleading that a claim has been exhausted lies with the petitioner. Cartwright v. Cupp, 650

F.2d 1103, 1104 (9th Cir. 1981).

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).

Case 3:10-cv-00665-DMS-WVG Document 3 Filed 03/30/10 Page 2 of 3
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 :\C O M M O N \E V E R Y O N E \_EFILE-PRO SE\D M S \10cv0665-G rant& D ism iss.w pd, 33010 -3- 10cv0665

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 attached exhibits 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 AND ORDER

Based on the foregoing, Petitioner’s application to proceed in forma pauperis is

GRANTED. The Petition is DISMISSED without prejudice for failure to allege exhaustion of

state court remedies. If Petitioner wishes to proceed with this matter, he must file a First

Amended Petition which alleges exhaustion of state court remedies on or before May 28, 2010.

Petitioner is cautioned that if he has not alleged exhaustion of his state court remedies before

May 28, 2010, and still wishes to pursue his habeas claims in this Court, he will be required to

start over by filing a new federal habeas petition which will be given a new civil case number.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: March 30, 2010

HON. DANA M. SABRAW

United States District Judge

Copies to: ALL PARTIES

Case 3:10-cv-00665-DMS-WVG Document 3 Filed 03/30/10 Page 3 of 3