Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-01008/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-01008-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 540
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Mandamus and Other
Cause of Action: 28:2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)

---

1

18cv1008

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

TRAVIS JEREL YOUNG,

Petitioner,

v.

CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF 

CORRECTIONS AND 

REHABILITATION, 

Respondent.

Case No. 18-cv-1008-BAS-MDD

ORDER: 

(1) GRANTING APPLICATION TO 

PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS,

AND

(2) DISMISSING FIRST AMENDED 

PETITION WITHOUT PREJUDICE

On May 16, 2018, Petitioner, proceeding pro se, submitted a Petition for Writ of 

Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. In its May 29, 2018 Order, the Court 

dismissed this case without prejudice because Petitioner failed to satisfy the filing fee 

requirement and failed to allege exhaustion of state judicial remedies. (ECF No. 2.) 

Petitioner was instructed that to have this case reopened he had to (1) either pay the filing 

fee or provide adequate proof of his inability to pay and (2) file a First Amended Petition 

no later than August 6, 2018. On August 1, 2018, Petitioner filed a First Amended Petition

and a motion to proceed in forma pauperis. (ECF No. 4, Am. Pet; ECF No. 5.) 

Case 3:18-cv-01008-BAS-MDD Document 6 Filed 08/10/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 5
2

18cv1008

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

I. 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 (ECF No. 5), and allows 

Petitioner to prosecute the above-referenced action without being required to prepay fees 

or costs and without being required to post security. The Clerk of the Court shall file the 

Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus without prepayment of the filing fee.

II. FAILURE TO ALLEGE EXHAUSTION OF STATE JUDICIAL REMEDIES

The First Amended Petition must be denied because Petitioner has again failed to 

allege exhaustion of state judicial remedies. 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. In Duncan v. Henry, 513 U.S. 364 (1995), the Supreme Court reasoned that: “[i]f 

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 in the First Amended Petition does Petitioner allege that he raised his 

claims in the California Supreme Court. In fact, he specifically indicates he did not seek 

such review. (See Am. Pet. at 5–8.) 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 

Case 3:18-cv-01008-BAS-MDD Document 6 Filed 08/10/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 5
3

18cv1008

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

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

(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 

Case 3:18-cv-01008-BAS-MDD Document 6 Filed 08/10/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 5
4

18cv1008

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

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 plainly appears from the First Amended Petition that Petitioner 

is not presently entitled to federal habeas relief because he has not alleged exhaustion of 

state court remedies.

III. FAILURE TO NAME A PROPER RESPONDENT

Further, review of the First Amended Petition reveals that Petitioner has failed to 

name a proper respondent. In a federal habeas case, 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 2(a), 28 U.S.C. foll. § 2254). 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 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). In either instance, Petitioner must name the appropriate state officer.

Here, Petitioner has incorrectly named “California Department of Corrections and 

Rehabilitation,” an institution, as the 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 Secretary of the 

California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. Brittingham v. United States, 

Case 3:18-cv-01008-BAS-MDD Document 6 Filed 08/10/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 5
5

18cv1008

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

982 F.2d 378, 379 (9th Cir. 1992) (per curiam). The Petition is subject to dismissal for this 

independent basis.

IV. CONCLUSION & ORDER

For the foregoing reason, the Court hereby GRANTS Petitioner’s motion to proceed 

in forma pauperis (ECF No. 5), and DISMISSES the case without prejudice (ECF No. 4). 

To reopen this case, Petitioner may file a Second Amended Petition no later than

October 12, 2018, which cures the pleading deficiencies outlined above. A Second 

Amended Petition must allege both that (1) Petitioner has exhausted his state court 

remedies with regard to the claim(s) raised therein and (2) name a proper respondent. If 

Petitioner fails to file a Second Amended Petition by the foregoing date, the case will 

remain closed and Plaintiff will need file a completely new habeas petition. See In re 

Turner, 101 F.3d 1323 (9th Cir. 1997). For Petitioner’s convenience, the Clerk of Court 

is directed to provide Petitioner with a blank Amended Petition form with a copy of this 

Order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: August 10, 2018

Case 3:18-cv-01008-BAS-MDD Document 6 Filed 08/10/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 5 of 5