Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_14-cv-03044/USCOURTS-casd-3_14-cv-03044-0/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JUAN L. POOLE, II, Civil No. 14-3044 BTM (MDD)

Petitioner,

ORDER DENYING IN FORMA

PAUPERIS APPLICATION AND

DISMISSING CASE WITHOUT

PREJUDICE, AND WITH LEAVE

TO AMEND

v.

BONNIE DUMANIS, et al., 

Respondents.

Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has not paid the $5.00 filing fee and

has filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, together

with a request to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a).

REQUEST TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS

The request to proceed in forma pauperis is denied because Petitioner has not

provided the Court with sufficient information to determine Petitioner’s financialstatus. 

A request to proceed in forma pauperis made by a state prisoner must include a

certificate from the warden or other appropriate officer showing the amount of money

or securities Petitioner has on account in the institution. Rule 3(a)(2), 28 U.S.C. foll.

§ 2254; Local Rule 3.2. Petitioner has failed to provide the Court with the required

Prison Certificate. 

/ / /

-1-

Case 3:14-cv-03044-BTM-MDD Document 5 Filed 02/09/15 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

FAILURE TO ALLEGE EXHAUSTION OF STATE JUDICIAL REMEDIES

Further, 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 StatesConstitution.” 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).

Nowhere on the Petition does Petitioner allege that he raised his claims in the

California Supreme Court. If Petitioner has raised his claims in the California Supreme

Court he must so specify. “The burden of proving that a claim has been exhausted lies

with the petitioner.” Matthews v. Evatt, 105 F.3d 907, 911 (4th Cir. 1997); see Breard

v. Pruett, 134 F.3d 615, 619 (4th Cir. 1998); Lambert v. Blackwell, 134 F.3d 506, 513

(3d Cir. 1997); Oyler v. Allenbrand, 23 F.3d 292, 300 (10th Cir. 1994); Rust v. Zent, 17

F.3d 155, 160 (6th Cir. 1994).

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:

-2-

Case 3:14-cv-03044-BTM-MDD Document 5 Filed 02/09/15 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

(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

wasinitially 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 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). 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 appearsfromthe face of the petition and any

exhibits annexed to it 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

Accordingly, the Court DENIES the request to proceed in forma pauperis, and

DISMISSES the case without prejudice. To have the case reopened, Petitioner must, no

later than March 23, 2015, (1) either pay the filing fee or provide adequate proof of

-3-

Case 3:14-cv-03044-BTM-MDD Document 5 Filed 02/09/15 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

his inability to pay and (2) file a First Amended Petition which cures the pleading

deficiency outlined above. For Petitioner’s convenience, the Clerk of Court shall attach

to this Order a blank in forma pauperis application and a blank First Amended Petition

form.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 9, 2015

-4-

Case 3:14-cv-03044-BTM-MDD Document 5 Filed 02/09/15 Page 4 of 4