Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-02771/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-02771-0/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\BATTAGLI\DJ CASES\2 Orders to be filed\deny-dismiss.wpd, 121211 -1-

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CRAIG ROBERT LINFOOT, Civil

No.

11-2771 AJB (BGS)

Petitioner,

ORDER DENYING IN FORMA

PAUPERIS APPLICATION AND

DISMISSING CASE WITHOUT

PREJUDICE AND WITH LEAVE TO

AMEND

v.

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF

CALIFORNIA, et al.,

Respondents.

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).

REQUEST TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS

The request 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

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. Therefore, the Court DENIES

Petitioner’s request to proceed in forma pauperis. 

Case 3:11-cv-02771-AJB-BGS Document 3 Filed 12/12/11 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\BATTAGLI\DJ CASES\2 Orders to be filed\deny-dismiss.wpd, 121211 -2-

FAILURE TO NAME A 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 “People of California,” and “The United States

Attorney General” as Respondents. 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 Secretary of the California Department of Corrections and

Rehabilitation. Brittingham v. United States, 982 F.2d 378, 379 (9th Cir. 1992) (per curiam).

/ / /

/ / /

Case 3:11-cv-02771-AJB-BGS Document 3 Filed 12/12/11 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\BATTAGLI\DJ CASES\2 Orders to be filed\deny-dismiss.wpd, 121211 -3-

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

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 the trial court imposed an excissive restitution fine as part of

his sentence. (Pet. at 3-4.) 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.

Further, the Court notes that Petitioner cannot simply amend his Petition to state a federal

habeas claim and then refile the amended petition in this case. He must exhaust state judicial

remedies before bringing his claims via federal habeas. State prisoners who wish to challenge

their state court conviction 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. See 28 U.S.C.

§ 2254(b), (c); Granberry, 481 U.S. at 133-34. Moreover, to properly exhaust state court

judicial 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)

Case 3:11-cv-02771-AJB-BGS Document 3 Filed 12/12/11 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\BATTAGLI\DJ CASES\2 Orders to be filed\deny-dismiss.wpd, 121211 -4-

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

the due process of law guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment, he must say so, not only in

federal court, but in state court.” Id. (emphasis added).

Additionally, the Court cautions Petitioner that under the Antiterrorism and Effective

Death Penalty Act of 1996 (Act), signed into law on April 24, 1996, 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. § 2244(d)(1)(A)-(D) (West Supp. 2002).

The Court also notes that 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

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

Case 3:11-cv-02771-AJB-BGS Document 3 Filed 12/12/11 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\BATTAGLI\DJ CASES\2 Orders to be filed\deny-dismiss.wpd, 121211 -5-

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).

CONCLUSION

Accordingly, the Court DENIES the request to proceed in forma pauperis, and

DISMISSES the case without prejudice for failure to name a proper respondent and failure to

state a cognizable claim. To have the case reopened, Petitioner must, no later than February

13, 2012, (1) either pay the filing fee or provide adequate proof of his inability to pay and (2)

submit a First Amended Petition which cures the pleading deficiencies outlined in this Order.

For Petitioner’s convenience, the Clerk of Court shall attach to this Order a blank in forma

pauperis application and a blank First Amended Petition form.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: December 12, 2011

Hon. Anthony J. Battaglia

U.S. District Judge

CC: ALL PARTIES

Case 3:11-cv-02771-AJB-BGS Document 3 Filed 12/12/11 Page 5 of 5