Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-01547/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-01547-0/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

17cv1547

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

MICHAEL E. MAAS,

Petitioner,

v.

RONALD RACKLEY, Warden,

Respondent.

Case No.: 3:17-cv-1547-BAS(JMA)

ORDER: 

(1) CONSTRUING ACTION AS A 

PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS 

CORPUS PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2254 

(2) GRANTING IN FORMA 

PAUPERIS APPLICATION (ECF. 

No. 2) 

AND

(3) DISMISSING CASE WITHOUT 

PREJUDICE

Petitioner Michael E. Maas, a state prisoner, proceeding pro se, has filed a Petition 

for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (ECF No. 1), along with a request 

to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 2). Although Petitioner filed this action pursuant 

to 28 U.S.C. § 2241, he is a state prisoner attacking the validity of a state court conviction 

and sentence imposed by the State of California. Therefore, Petitioner may not proceed 

Case 3:17-cv-01547-BAS-JMA Document 3 Filed 09/05/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 4
2

17cv1547

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

under section 2241, but may only proceed with a habeas action in federal court under 28 

U.S.C. § 2254. See White v. Lambert, 370 F.3d 1002, 1006-07 (9th Cir. 2004) (holding 

that section 2254 is the proper jurisdictional basis for a habeas petition brought by an 

individual “in custody pursuant to a state court judgment”). The Court, therefore, 

CONTRUES this action as one brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254.

I. REQUEST TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS

Along with his request to proceed in forma pauperis, Petitioner has submitted a copy 

of his prison trust account statement which reflects that he has no funds on account at the 

facility in which he is presently confined. Petitioner cannot afford the $5.00 filing fee. 

Thus, the Court GRANTS Petitioner’s application to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 

2). The Clerk of the Court shall file the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus without 

prepayment of the filing fee.

II. FAILURE TO ALLEGE EXHAUSTION OF STATE JUDICIAL REMEDIES

The Petition must be dismissed, however, because Petitioner has failed 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). 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 

Case 3:17-cv-01547-BAS-JMA Document 3 Filed 09/05/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 4
3

17cv1547

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

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).

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. “The burden of proving that a claim has been exhausted lies 

with the petitioner.” Matthews v. Evatt, 105 F.3d 907, 911 (4th Cir. 1997); see Breard v. 

Pruett, 134 F.3d 615, 619 (4th Cir. 1998); Lambert v. Blackwell, 134 F.3d 506, 513 (3d 

Cir. 1997); Oyler v. Allenbrand, 23 F.3d 292, 300 (10th Cir. 1994); Rust v. Zent, 17 F.3d 

155, 160 (6th Cir. 1994).

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 Supp. 2002).

Case 3:17-cv-01547-BAS-JMA Document 3 Filed 09/05/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 4
4

17cv1547

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

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) (“[A]n 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 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.

III. CONCLUSION

Accordingly, the Court CONSTRUES the instant action as a habeas petition 

brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The Court GRANTS Petitioner’s request to 

proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 2), and DISMISSES the case without prejudice. To 

have this case reopened, Petitioner must file an amended petition which cures the pleading 

deficiency discussed above no later than November 3, 2017. For Petitioner’s 

convenience, a blank 28 U.S.C. § 2254 form petition is attached to this Order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: September 5, 2017

Case 3:17-cv-01547-BAS-JMA Document 3 Filed 09/05/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 4