Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_19-cv-00514/USCOURTS-casd-3_19-cv-00514-2/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

19cv0514 H (RBM)

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

DELBERT RONDELL GARNDER,

Petitioner,

v.

STATE OF CALIFORNIA, et al.,

Respondents.

Case No.: 19cv0514 H (RBM)

ORDER: 

(1) GRANTING MOTION TO 

PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS

[Doc. No. 2]

(2) DISMISSING CASE WITHOUT 

PREJUDICE AND WITH LEAVE TO 

AMEND

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

Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, (Doc. No. 5), together with a request to 

proceed in forma pauperis, (Doc. No. 2).

I. MOTION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS

Petitioner has $0 on account at the California correctional institution in which he is 

presently confined. Petitioner cannot afford the $5 filing fee. Thus, the Court grants

Petitioner’s application to proceed in forma pauperis 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.

Case 3:19-cv-00514-H-RBM Document 9 Filed 04/04/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 5
2

19cv0514 H (RBM)

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

II. FAILURE TO NAME PROPER RESPONDENT

Review of the Petition 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 the State of California and Xavier Becerra as 

Respondents. (Doc. No. 5 at 1.) 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 3:19-cv-00514-H-RBM Document 9 Filed 04/04/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 5
3

19cv0514 H (RBM)

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

III. 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) (citations 

omitted). 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 applies 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 runs 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-00514-H-RBM Document 9 Filed 04/04/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 5
4

19cv0514 H (RBM)

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).

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.

IV. 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.

/ / /

/ / /

Case 3:19-cv-00514-H-RBM Document 9 Filed 04/04/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 5
5

19cv0514 H (RBM)

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

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 appears to claim that his California Department of Corrections and 

Rehabilitation inmate number has been changed and that the terms of a settlement have 

been breached. (Doc. No. 5 at 4–6.) Petitioner also appears to contend that his trial counsel 

was ineffective in some manner related to the change in his inmate number. (Id. at 5.) In 

no way does he contend that he is “in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or 

treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254.

CONCLUSION

For 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. To have this 

case reopened, Petitioner must, no later than June 10, 2019, file a First Amended Petition 

that cures the pleading deficiencies addressed above. The Clerk of Court is instructed to 

mail a blank First Amended Petition form to Petitioner together with a copy of this Order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: April 4, 2019

 

MARILYN L. HUFF, District Judge

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Case 3:19-cv-00514-H-RBM Document 9 Filed 04/04/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 5 of 5