Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_19-cv-01827/USCOURTS-casd-3_19-cv-01827-0/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

19cv1827 LAB (AHG)

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

STEVEN WAYNE BONILLA,

Petitioner,

v.

ANTHONY BATTAGLIA, et al.,

Respondents.

Case No.: 19cv1827 LAB (AHG) 

ORDER DISMISSING CASE 

WITHOUT PREJUDICE

Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed a document this Court 

construes as a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254.

1

FAILURE TO SATSIFY FILING FEE REQUIREMENT

Petitioner has failed to pay the $5.00 filing fee and has failed to move to proceed in 

forma pauperis. This Court cannot proceed until Petitioner has either paid the $5.00 filing 

fee or qualified to proceed in forma pauperis. See Rule 3(a), 28 U.S.C. foll. § 2254. 

1 Because Petitioner is a state prisoner seeking “immediate release” from state custody

(see Pet. at 3, ECF No. 1), this Court liberally construes the document as a petition for 

writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. See Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 

(2007) (per curiam) (“A document filed pro se is ‘to be liberally construed,’ and a ‘pro se 

complaint, however inartfully pleaded, must be held to less stringent standards than 

formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.’”)

Case 3:19-cv-01827-LAB-AHG Document 2 Filed 09/27/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 4
2

19cv1827 LAB (AHG)

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

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

A petition for writ of habeas corpus may be filed in the United States District Court 

of either the judicial district in which the petitioner is presently confined or the judicial 

district in which he was convicted and sentenced. See 28 U.S.C. § 2241(d); Braden v. 30th 

Judicial Circuit Court, 410 U.S. 484, 497 (1973). Petitioner is presently confined at San 

Quentin State Prison, located in Marin County, which is within the jurisdictional 

boundaries of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. See

28 U.S.C. § 84(a). Although it is not entirely clear, Petitioner appears to be challenging a 

conviction from Alameda County because he references Alameda County Superior Court 

and claims that the prosecutor “committed fraud on the Superior Court.” (See Pet., ECF 

No. 1 at 1.) Alameda County is also located within the jurisdictional boundaries of the 

United States District Court for the Northern District of California. See 28 U.S.C. § 84(a). 

Accordingly, habeas corpus jurisdiction appears to lie in the Northern District and not the 

Southern District.2

FALIURE TO ALLEGE EXHAUSTION

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. 

 

2 The Court notes that it appears Petitioner has a petition for writ of habeas corpus

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging his Alameda County conviction and death 

sentence pending before the United States District Court for the Northern District of 

California in case number 4:08-CV-00471 YGR.

Case 3:19-cv-01827-LAB-AHG Document 2 Filed 09/27/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 4
3

19cv1827 LAB (AHG)

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

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).

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

his federal petition 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:

(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

/ / /

/ / /

Case 3:19-cv-01827-LAB-AHG Document 2 Filed 09/27/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 4
4

19cv1827 LAB (AHG)

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

(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 appears from the 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

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

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 27, 2019

Hon. Larry Alan Burns

Chief United States District Judge

Case 3:19-cv-01827-LAB-AHG Document 2 Filed 09/27/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 4