Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_10-cv-00037/USCOURTS-casd-3_10-cv-00037-0/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

H:\'09-10\Pro se\10cv0037-Grant&Dismiss.wpd, 11310 -1- 10cv0037

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ARTHUR FREDRICK LUTE, III, Civil No. 10cv0037-IEG (BLM)

Petitioner,

ORDER GRANTING APPLICATION

TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS

AND DISMISSING PETITION

WITHOUT PREJUDICE

v.

GEORGE A. NEOTTI, 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 no funds 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. 

The Petition is subject to dismissal, however, because Petitioner has not alleged

exhaustion of his state court remedies. Federal 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

Case 3:10-cv-00037-IEG-BLM Document 3 Filed 01/13/10 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

H:\'09-10\Pro se\10cv0037-Grant&Dismiss.wpd, 11310 -2- 10cv0037

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 that he has exhausted state judicial remedies. In fact,

Petitioner specifically indicates that he has not yet raised his claims in the California Supreme

Court. (Pet. at 5-8.) 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-00037-IEG-BLM Document 3 Filed 01/13/10 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

H:\'09-10\Pro se\10cv0037-Grant&Dismiss.wpd, 11310 -3- 10cv0037

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

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

pauperis and DISMISSES this action without prejudice because Petitioner has failed to allege

exhaustion of state judicial remedies. To have this case reopened, Petitioner must file a First

Amended Petition no later than March 15, 2010, that cures the pleading deficiencies set forth

above. Petitioner is advised that if he has not alleged exhaustion of his state court remedies

before March 15, 2010, and he still wishes to pursue his habeas claims in this Court, he will

have to start over by filing a completely new habeas petition in this Court which will be given

a new civil case number. See In re Turner, 101 F.3d 1323 (9th Cir. 1997).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: January 13, 2010

IRMA E. GONZALEZ, Chief Judge

United States District Court

Copies to: ALL PARTIES

Case 3:10-cv-00037-IEG-BLM Document 3 Filed 01/13/10 Page 3 of 3