Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_07-cv-01891/USCOURTS-casd-3_07-cv-01891-0/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\WQH\07cv1891-Dismiss.wpd, 10167 -1- 07cv1891

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

A. VILLAPANDO, Civil No. 07cv1891-WQH (NLS)

Petitioner,

ORDER DISMISSING CASE 

v. WITHOUT PREJUDICE

PEOPLE OF SAN DIEGO COUNTY,

Respondent.

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

Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, but has failed to pay the $5.00 filing fee and has failed to

move to proceed in forma pauperis. Petitioner has also failed to name a proper respondent,

failed to state a cognizable claim, and failed to allege exhaustion of state court remedies.

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. If Petitioner wishes to proceed with this case, he must submit,

no later than December 3, 2007, a copy of this Order with the $5.00 fee or with adequate proof

of his inability to pay the fee. 

In addition, a review of the Petition 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

Case 3:07-cv-01891-WQH-NLS Document 2 Filed 10/16/07 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\EVERYONE\_EFILE-PROSE\WQH\07cv1891-Dismiss.wpd, 10167 -2- 07cv1891

2(a), 28 U.S.C. foll. § 2254). “Typically, that person is the warden of the facility in which the

petitioner is incarcerated.” Id. 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 [or she] 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). “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 the “People of San Diego County” 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 and Rehabilitation. Brittingham v. United

States, 982 F.2d 378, 379 (9th Cir. 1992) (per curiam). 

Additionally, 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.

Case 3:07-cv-01891-WQH-NLS Document 2 Filed 10/16/07 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\EVERYONE\_EFILE-PROSE\WQH\07cv1891-Dismiss.wpd, 10167 -3- 07cv1891

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 the “trial court imposed an illegal enhancement.” (Pet. at 3.)

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 may not be able to 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. 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 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 as to the

claim presented. Nowhere in the Petition does Petitioner allege that he raised his claim in the

California Supreme Court. If Petitioner has raised his claim in the California Supreme Court he

Case 3:07-cv-01891-WQH-NLS Document 2 Filed 10/16/07 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\EVERYONE\_EFILE-PROSE\WQH\07cv1891-Dismiss.wpd, 10167 -4- 07cv1891

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).

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.”); Bonner v. Carey, 425 F.3d 1145, 1149 (9th Cir.) (holding that a state

application for post-conviction relief which is ultimately dismissed as untimely was neither

“properly filed” nor “pending” while it was under consideration by the state court, and therefore

does not toll the statute of limitations), as amended 439 F.3d 993, cert. denied, 127 S.Ct (2006).

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).

Case 3:07-cv-01891-WQH-NLS Document 2 Filed 10/16/07 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\EVERYONE\_EFILE-PROSE\WQH\07cv1891-Dismiss.wpd, 10167 -5- 07cv1891

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 stated a cognizable claim, has not alleged exhaustion of state court

remedies and has not named a proper Respondent.

CONCLUSION

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

Petitioner has failed to satisfy the filing fee requirement, failed to name a proper respondent,

failed to state a cognizable claim, and failed to allege exhaustion of state judicial remedies. To

have this case reopened, Petitioner must satisfy the filing fee requirement and file a First

Amended Petition no later than December 3, 2007, that cures the pleading deficiencies set forth

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

before December 3, 2007, he will have to start over by filing a completely new habeas petition

in this Court. See In re Turner, 101 F.3d 1323 (9th Cir. 1997). The Clerk shall send a blank

First Amended Petition form and a blank In Forma Pauperis form to Petitioner with this Order..

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: October 16, 2007

WILLIAM Q. HAYES

United States District Judge

Case 3:07-cv-01891-WQH-NLS Document 2 Filed 10/16/07 Page 5 of 5