Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_07-cv-02163/USCOURTS-casd-3_07-cv-02163-0/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\L\07cv2163-Deny&Dismiss.wpd, 1148 -1- 07cv2163

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

PAMELA J. BAKER, Civil No. 07cv2163-L (CAB)

Petitioner,

ORDER DENYING IN FORMA

PAUPERIS APPLICATION AND

DISMISSING CASE WITHOUT

PREJUDICE

v.

DEBORAH L. PATRICK, Warden,

Respondent.

Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a Petition for a Writ of Habeas

Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. On November 15, 2007, the Court denied Petitioner’s

application to proceed in forma pauperis because it appeared from her prison trust account

statement that she could afford to pay the $5.00 filing fee. The Court also dismissed the Petition

because it presented only state law claims. Petitioner was instructed that in order to have this

case reopened, she had to pay the filing fee and file a First Amended Petition on or before

January 14, 2008. Petitioner has now filed a Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis and a First

Amended Petition.

The request to proceed in forma pauperis reflects a $16.95 balance in Petitioner’s prison

trust account. The filing fee associated with this type of action is $5.00. See 28 U.S.C.

§ 1914(a).

It appears Petitioner can pay the requisite filing fee. Accordingly, the Court DENIES the

request to proceed in forma pauperis, and DISMISSES the case without prejudice; Petitioner

Case 3:07-cv-02163-L-CAB Document 7 Filed 01/14/08 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\L\07cv2163-Deny&Dismiss.wpd, 1148 -2- 07cv2163

may submit a copy of this order along with the requisite fee no later than February 14, 2008,

to have the case reopened.

Additionally, the First Amended Petition is also once again subject to dismissal in

accordance with Rule 4 of the rules governing § 2254 cases, because Petitioner has once again

failed to state a claim cognizable on federal habeas in that she has failed to allege that her 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 she is in custody pursuant to a “judgment of

a State court,” and that she 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 once again claims that she “was convicted of both receiving and stealing

the same property,” that “the jury was not instructed that it could not convict me of both stealing

and receiving the same property,” and “the trial court abused its discretion under Evidence Code

352.” (First Amended Petition at 6-8.) In no way does Petitioner claim she is “in custody in

violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254.

Although Petitioner states that she incorporates by reference her opening brief on appeal as she

did in her original Petition, that document is again not attached to her pleading.

Further, the Court once again notes that Petitioner may not be able to simply amend her

Petition to state a federal habeas claim and then refile the amended petition in this case. She

must exhaust state judicial remedies before bringing her claims via federal habeas. Habeas

petitioners who wish to challenge either their state court conviction or the length of their

Case 3:07-cv-02163-L-CAB Document 7 Filed 01/14/08 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\L\07cv2163-Deny&Dismiss.wpd, 1148 -3- 07cv2163

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).

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.A. § 2244(d)(1)(A)-(D) (West 2006).

Case 3:07-cv-02163-L-CAB Document 7 Filed 01/14/08 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\L\07cv2163-Deny&Dismiss.wpd, 1148 -4- 07cv2163

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),

cert. denied, 529 U.S. 1104 (2000). 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.”); Bonner v. Carey, 425 F.3d 1145, 1149 (9th Cir.) (holding that a state

application for post-conviction relief which is ultimately dismissed as untimely was neither

“properly filed” nor “pending” while it was under consideration by the state court, and therefore

does not toll the statute of limitations), as amended 439 F.3d 993, cert. denied, 127 S.Ct (2006).

However, absent some other basis for tolling, the statute of limitations continues to 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 First Amended Petition that Petitioner is not presently entitled

to federal habeas relief because she has not stated a cognizable claim.

CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, the Court DISMISSES this action without prejudice because

Petitioner has failed to satisfy the filing fee requirement and has failed to state a cognizable

claim. To have this case reopened, Petitioner must satisfy the filing fee requirement and file a

Second Amended Petition no later than February 14, 2008 that cures the pleading deficiencies

set forth above. Further, Petitioner is advised that if the Second Amended Petition once again

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

Case 3:07-cv-02163-L-CAB Document 7 Filed 01/14/08 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\L\07cv2163-Deny&Dismiss.wpd, 1148 -5- 07cv2163

fails to state a cognizable federal claim, this action will be subject to dismissal without further

leave to amend. The Clerk of Court shall send a blank Southern District of California amended

petition form to Petitioner along with a copy of this Order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: January 14, 2008

M. James Lorenz

United States District Court Judge

CC: ALL PARTIES

Case 3:07-cv-02163-L-CAB Document 7 Filed 01/14/08 Page 5 of 5