Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_15-cv-01961/USCOURTS-casd-3_15-cv-01961-0/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 F. ALVARADO, Civil No. 15cv1961-GPC (WVG)

Petitioner,

ORDER DENYING IN FORMA

PAUPERIS APPLICATION AND

DISMISSING CASE WITHOUT

PREJUDICE

v.

DANIEL PARAMO, Warden,

Respondent.

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). Petitioner seeks reduction of his

state sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(C)(1)(A) and Fed.R.Crim.P. 35(b). (Pet. at 10-11.) The

Petition is subject to dismissal because Petitioner has not satisfied the filing fee requirement, has

not alleged exhaustion of state court remedies, and has not stated a claim cognizable on federal

habeas. 

MOTION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS

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

the Court with sufficient information to determine Petitioner’s financial status. 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

-1- 15cv1961

Case 3:15-cv-01961-GPC-WVG Document 3 Filed 09/11/15 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

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. Accordingly, the Court DENIES the

request to proceed in forma pauperis.

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, treaties

or laws 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

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 he is entitled to a downward departure from his state court

sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(C)(1)(A), which provides that a federal sentencing court, upon

a motion of the Director of the Federal Bureau of Prisons, may reduce a federal term of

imprisonment where extraordinary and compelling reasons warrant a reduction, or where the

defendant is at least 70 years of age and certain other conditions are met. (Pet. at 10.) Petitioner

also claims he is entitled to sentence reduction under Fed.R.Crim.P. 35(b), which provides for

reduction of a federal sentence, upon the government’s motion, for substantial assistance. (Pet.

at 10.) However, Petitioner has not alleged how his federal rights have been violated by the

failure of a federal sentencing court to reduce his state sentence under federal provisions which

do not apply to state sentencing. 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.

-2- 15cv1961

Case 3:15-cv-01961-GPC-WVG Document 3 Filed 09/11/15 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

Further, the Court notes that even if Petitioner could somehow amend his Petition to state

a federal habeas claim and then refile the amended petition in this case, he must still 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).

Petitioner indicates that he has not presented his claim to the California Supreme Court. 

(See Pet. at 6.) The burden of proving 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 byState action in violation of the Constitution or laws of the

-3- 15cv1961

Case 3:15-cv-01961-GPC-WVG Document 3 Filed 09/11/15 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

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). 

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 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 federal claimand has not alleged exhaustion ofstate

court remedies.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Accordingly, the Court DENIES Petitioner’s Motion to proceed in forma pauaperis and

DISMISSES the case without prejudice due to Petitioner’s failure to satisfy the filing fee

requirement, failure to allege a cognizable federal claim, and failure to allege exhaustion ofstate

court remedies. To have the case reopened, Petitioner must, no later than November 5, 2015

provide the Court with: (1) a copy of this Order together with the $5.00 filing fee; or (2) a copy

of this Order together with adequate proof that Petitioner cannot pay the $5.00 filing fee and file

a First Amended Petition which states a cognizable federal claim and alleges exhaustion of state

-4- 15cv1961

Case 3:15-cv-01961-GPC-WVG Document 3 Filed 09/11/15 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

court remedies as to that claim. If Petitioner has not filed a First Amended Petition which cures

the pleading defects identified above on or before November 5, 2015, and he still wishes to

proceed with his claim on federal habeas, he will be required to file a new federal habeas petition

which will be given a new civil case number.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: September 11, 2015

HON. GONZALO P. CURIEL

United States District Judge

CC: ALL PARTIES

-5- 15cv1961

Case 3:15-cv-01961-GPC-WVG Document 3 Filed 09/11/15 Page 5 of 5