Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_08-cv-00209/USCOURTS-casd-3_08-cv-00209-0/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\EVERYONE\_EFILE-PROSE\IEG\08cv0209-dismiss.wpd, 2138 -1- 08cv0209

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LUIS FITA MERCADO, Civil No. 08-0209 IEG (CAB)

Petitioner,

ORDER DISMISSING CASE WITHOUT

PREJUDICE AND WITH LEAVE TO

AMEND

v.

JAMES WALKER, 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, and paid the filing fee.

FAILURE TO STATE A COGNIZABLE FEDERAL CLAIM 

In accordance with Rule 4 of the rules governing § 2254 cases, the Petition must be

dismissed because 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

Case 3:08-cv-00209-IEG-CAB Document 2 Filed 02/13/08 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\IEG\08cv0209-dismiss.wpd, 2138 -2- 08cv0209

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 the trial court violated his rights “because my attorney and

my co-defendants attorney with my co-defendant and myself were put into a meeting that wasn’t

suppose to happen on day one of the trial. I was deceived and or coerced and acted by mistak

to take a plea bargain deal.” (Pet. at 5.) 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. 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 his plea was involuntary in violation of due process of law

guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment, he must say so, not only in federal court, but in state

court.” Id. (emphasis added).

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

Case 3:08-cv-00209-IEG-CAB Document 2 Filed 02/13/08 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\IEG\08cv0209-dismiss.wpd, 2138 -3- 08cv0209

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).

CONCLUSION

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

leave to amend because Petitioner has failed to state a cognizable federal claim. To have this

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

Case 3:08-cv-00209-IEG-CAB Document 2 Filed 02/13/08 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\IEG\08cv0209-dismiss.wpd, 2138 -4- 08cv0209

case reopened, Petitioner must, no later than April 11, 2008, file a First Amended Petition that

cures the pleading deficiencies set forth above. For Petitioner’s convenience, the Clerk of Court

shall attach to this Order, a blank First Amended Petition form. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: February 13, 2008

IRMA E. GONZALEZ, Chief Judge

United States District Court

Case 3:08-cv-00209-IEG-CAB Document 2 Filed 02/13/08 Page 4 of 4