Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00809/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00809-2/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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

KELLYE C. BROTHERS, ) 

 ) 

 )

)

Petitioner, )

)

)

v. )

)

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF )

CALIFORNIA, )

)

Respondent. )

____________________________________)

1:05-cv-00809-AWI-TAG HC

ORDER TO FILE AMENDED PETITION

ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT

TO SEND PETITIONER BLANK FORM

PETITION

Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with a petition for writ

of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 

DISCUSSION

Rule 4 of the Rules Governing § 2254 Cases requires the Court to make a preliminary review

of each petition for writ of habeas corpus. The Court must dismiss a petition "[i]f it plainly appears

from the face of the petition . . . that the petitioner is not entitled to relief." Rule 4 of the Rules

Governing § 2254 Cases; Hendricks v. Vasquez, 908 F.2d 490 (9th Cir.1990). Otherwise, the Court

will order Respondent to respond to the petition. Rule 5 of the Rules Governing § 2254 Cases. A

preliminary review of the Petition reveals that Petitioner may not have exhausted his state court

remedies and may also have filed his Petition beyond the applicable one-year statute of limitations

period. Petitioner’s two claims do appear at this point to state cognizable constitutional claims.

I. Statute of Limitations.

The Ninth Circuit has held that a district court may raise the statute of limitations sua sponte

and dismiss the petition on those grounds. Herbst v. Cook, 260 F.3d 1039, 1042-1044 (9th Cir.

Case 1:05-cv-00809-AWI-TAG Document 9 Filed 03/23/07 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

2

2001) (indicating that once a petitioner is given adequate notice and opportunity to respond to

allegations that his petition is subject to dismissal pursuant to AEDPA's statute of limitations,

petitioner has the burden of providing an adequate response).

On April 24, 1996, Congress enacted the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of

1996 (AEDPA). The AEDPA imposes various requirements on all petitions for writ of habeas

corpus filed after the date of its enactment. Lindh v. Murphy, 521 U.S. 320, 117 S.Ct. 2059, 2063

(1997); Jeffries v. Wood, 114 F.3d 1484, 1499 (9th Cir. 1997) (en banc), cert. denied, 118 S.Ct. 586

(1997). The instant petition was filed on June 10, 2005; thus, it is subject to the provisions of the

AEDPA. 

The AEDPA imposes a one year period of limitation on petitioners seeking to file a federal

petition for writ of habeas corpus. 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1). As amended, § 2244, subdivision (d)

reads: 

(1) A 1-year period of limitation shall apply to an application 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. 

(2) The time during which a properly filed application for State post-conviction or

other collateral review with respect to the pertinent judgment or claim is pending shall

not be counted toward any period of limitation under this subsection. 

28 U.S.C. § 2244(d).

Here, Petitioner asserts that she was convicted on July 15, 2003, and that she did not

undertake any direct appeal of her conviction. (Doc. 1, p. 1). Therefore, direct review concluded on

September 13, 2003, when the sixty (60) day period for seeking review in the California Court of

Appeal expired. Kapral v. United States, 166 F.3d 565, 577 (3d Cir. 1999); Lewis v. Mitchell, 173

Case 1:05-cv-00809-AWI-TAG Document 9 Filed 03/23/07 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

3

F.Supp.2d 1057, 1060 (C.D. Cal. 2001); Cal.Rules of Court, rule 31(d). Petitioner would then have

one year from September 13, 2003, or until September 13, 2004, within which to file her federal

petition for writ of habeas corpus. The instant petition was filed on June 3, 2005, approximately nine

months after the statute of limitations would have expired. Thus, unless Petitioner is entitled to

either statutory or equitable tolling of the one-year statute, her petition is untimely under AEDPA. 

Title 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(2) states that the “time during which a properly filed application

for State post-conviction or other collateral review with respect to the pertinent judgment or claim is

pending shall not be counted toward” the one year limitation period. 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(2). See

Carey v. Saffold, 536 U.S. 214 (2002) (the Court held that a petitioner is normally entitled to one

“full round” of collateral review in state court without federal interference. While the “full round” is

properly in progress, the AEDPA’s one-year statute is tolled.). Welch v. Carey, 350 F.3d 1079 (9th

Cir. 2003) cert. denied by Welch v. Carey, 2004 U.S. LEXIS 3930 (June 1, 2004). 

Petitioner asserts that she sought collateral state review in Superior Court and the Court of

Appeal regarding her claims of unlawful search and seizure and inconsistent claims of the arresting

officers. It also appears from the documents appended to the petition that Petitioner sought state

habeas relief in the California Supreme Court, which denied her petition on April 13, 2005. Thus,

the claims would appear to be fully exhausted.

The same appended documents indicate that Petitioner commenced her state court habeas

proceedings by filing a habeas petition in the Superior Court on September 11, 2004, just two days

before the one-year statute of limitations period would have expired. As mentioned, the state

supreme court denied her petition on April 13, 2005. At that point, Petitioner still had two days left

of the one-year limitations period within which to file her petition; however, in the absence of any

further tolling, Petitioner would have had to file her petition within two days, or on or before April

15, 2005, in order to be timely under AEDPA. However, she did not file the instant petition until

June 3, 2005, some forty-nine days after the period appears to have expired. Thus, it would appear

that the petition is untimely under AEDPA.

However, Petitioner may have filed additional state habeas proceedings that would entitled

Petitioner to further tolling under AEDPA that would make her petition timely, and Petitioner has

Case 1:05-cv-00809-AWI-TAG Document 9 Filed 03/23/07 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

4

simply neglected to inform the Court of this fact. Therefore, this Court will grant Petitioner leave to

file an amended petition so that Petitioner may include the specific dates on which state court

collateral proceedings were pending so that the Court can ascertain whether the statute of limitations

has expired with respect to Petitioner’s claims. 

II. Naming The Proper Respondent.

A petitioner seeking habeas corpus relief must name the state officer having custody of her as

the respondent to the petition. Rule 2 (a) of the Rules Governing § 2254 Cases; Ortiz-Sandoval v.

Gomez, 81 F.3d 891, 894 (9th Cir. 1996); Stanley v. California Supreme Court, 21 F.3d 359, 360

(9th Cir. 1994). Normally, the person having custody of an incarcerated petitioner is the warden of

the prison in which the petitioner is incarcerated because the warden has “day-to-day control over”

the petitioner. Brittingham v. United States, 982 F.2d 378, 379 (9th Cir. 1992). However, the chief

officer in charge of state penal institutions is also appropriate. Ortiz-Sandoval, 81 F.3d at 894;

Stanley, 21 F.3d at 360. When a petitioner is on probation or parole, the proper respondent is her

probation or parole officer and the official in charge of the parole or probation agency or state

correctional agency. Id. 

In this case, Petitioner asserts that she was on probation at the time of filing the instant

petition. Accordingly, the proper respondent would be her probation officer and the official in

charge of the probation agency overseeing her probation. The “People of the State of California” is

not Petitioner’s probation officer and the official in charge of the probation agency overseeing her

probation, and thus is not the person having day-to-day control over Petitioner. 

Petitioner therefore must file an amended petition, naming as Respondent the individual

responsible for day-to-day control over Petitioner. See, West v. Louisiana, 478 F.2d 1026, 1029 (5th

Cir. 1973), vacated in part on other grounds, 510 F.2d 363 (5th Cir. 1975) (en banc) (allowing

petitioner to amend petition to name proper respondent); Ashley v. State of Washington, 394 F.2d

125 (9th Cir. 1968) (same). Petitioner’s failure to name her proper custodian as a respondent

deprives this Court of personal jurisdiction to consider her petition. Stanley, 21 F.3d at 360; Dunne

v. Henman, 875 F.2d 244, 249 (9th Cir. 1989).

///

Case 1:05-cv-00809-AWI-TAG Document 9 Filed 03/23/07 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

5

ORDER

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1) Petitioner is granted thirty (30) days from the date of service of this order to file an

amended petition. In that amended petition, Petitioner must inform the Court what claims

have been presented in the state courts in her state habeas corpus petitions, as well as the

dates those petitions were filed, and the dates on which they were ruled upon, so that this

Court can determine whether the original petition was filed within the one-year statute of

limitations period; 

2) Petitioner’s Amended Petition must list the proper Respondent, as indicated above;

3) The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to send Petitioner a blank form petition for state

prisoners filing pursuant to § 2254. 

Petitioner is forewarned that failure to follow this order will result in dismissal of the petition

pursuant to Local Rule 11-110.

Petitioner is further advised that the amended petition should be clearly entitled

“Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus.” Petitioner is advised that the petition must

set forth her claim(s), including all the facts and arguments in support of said claim(s). With

respect to any claims raised in an amended petition, Petitioner must have presented those

claims, either in his original state court appeal or through a subsequent state habeas corpus

petition, to the California Supreme Court prior to raising them in this Court. It is Petitioner’s

responsibility to advise the Court in her amended petition of the dates when the state courts

ruled on the issues Petitioner raised. The Court will not consider the original petition. 

Petitioner’s failure to file an amended petition in a timely fashion will result in a

recommendation that the petition be dismissed for Petitioner’s failure to state a federal claim.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 23, 2007 /s/ Theresa A. Goldner 

j6eb3d UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

Case 1:05-cv-00809-AWI-TAG Document 9 Filed 03/23/07 Page 5 of 5