Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_10-cv-01034/USCOURTS-casd-3_10-cv-01034-0/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\DMS\10cv1034_grtIFP&dismiss.wpd, 52010 -1- 10cv1034

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MATTHEW A. LAWRIE, Civil No. 10-1034 DMS (PCL)

Petitioner,

ORDER: 

(1) GRANTING APPLICATION TO

PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS; and

(2) DISMISSING CASE WITHOUT

PREJUDICE AND WITH LEAVE TO

AMEND

v.

PEOPLE OF CALIFORNIA, 

Respondent.

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

Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, together with a request to proceed in forma pauperis. 

MOTION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS

Petitioner has $0.00 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, and allows Petitioner to prosecute the

above-referenced action as a poor person 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.

/ / /

/ / /

Case 3:10-cv-01034-DMS-PCL Document 3 Filed 05/20/10 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\DMS\10cv1034_grtIFP&dismiss.wpd, 52010 -2- 10cv1034

FAILURE TO NAME PROPER RESPONDENT

Review of the Petition also 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 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).

A long standing rule in the Ninth Circuit holds “that a petitioner may not seek [a writ of]

habeas corpus against the State under . . . [whose] authority . . . the petitioner is in custody. 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 “People of the State of California,” 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. Brittingham v. United States, 982 F.2d

378, 379 (9th Cir. 1992) (per curiam).

/ / /

Case 3:10-cv-01034-DMS-PCL Document 3 Filed 05/20/10 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\DMS\10cv1034_grtIFP&dismiss.wpd, 52010 -3- 10cv1034

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). Ordinarily, to satisfy the

exhaustion requirement, a petitioner must “fairly present[] his federal claim to the highest state

court with jurisdiction to consider it . . . or . . . demonstrate[] that no state remedy remains

available. Johnson v. Zenon, 88 F.3d 828, 829 (9th Cir. 1996) (citing Picard v. Connor, 404

U.S. 270, 275 (1971); Anderson v. Harless, 459 U.S. 4, 6 (1982)). 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. 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.” See Duncan v. Henry, 513 U.S. 364, 365-66 (1995)(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. 

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 3:10-cv-01034-DMS-PCL Document 3 Filed 05/20/10 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\DMS\10cv1034_grtIFP&dismiss.wpd, 52010 -4- 10cv1034

(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 Supp. 2002).

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.

FAILURE TO STATE A COGNIZABLE FEDERAL CLAIM 

Additionally, in accordance with Rule 4 of the rules governing § 2254 cases, 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

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

Case 3:10-cv-01034-DMS-PCL Document 3 Filed 05/20/10 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\DMS\10cv1034_grtIFP&dismiss.wpd, 52010 -5- 10cv1034

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 his conviction is based on inappropriate and misleading

identification of a vehicle. (See 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.

CONCLUSION

For all the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS Petitioner’s motion to proceed in

forma pauperis and DISMISSES this case without prejudice and with leave to amend. If

Petitioner wishes to proceed with this case, he must, no later than July 20, 2010, file a First

Amended Petition which cures the pleading deficiencies outlined in this Order. THE CLERK

OF COURT IS DIRECTED TO MAIL PETITIONER A BLANK FIRST AMENDED

PETITION FOR TOGETHER WITH A COPY OF THIS ORDER.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: May 20, 2010

HON. DANA M. SABRAW

United States District Judge

Case 3:10-cv-01034-DMS-PCL Document 3 Filed 05/20/10 Page 5 of 5