Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-01394/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-01394-0/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

18cv1394 GPC (NLS)

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

LEOPOLDO PACUAN,

Petitioner,

v.

SULLIVAN, Warden,

Respondent.

Case No.: 18cv1394 GPC (NLS)

ORDER:

(1) DENYING IN FORMA PAUPERIS 

APPLICATION AND 

(2) DISMISSING CASE WITHOUT 

PREJUDICE AND WITH LEAVE TO 

AMEND

Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas 

Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 along with an application to proceed in forma 

pauperis. 

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. 

Case 3:18-cv-01394-GPC-NLS Document 3 Filed 06/28/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 4
2

18cv1394 GPC (NLS)

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

FAILURE TO ALLEGE EXHAUSTION OF STATE JUDICIAL REMEDIES

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 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. In fact, he specifically indicates he did not seek such review. 

(See Pet. at 3.) 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).

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 

Case 3:18-cv-01394-GPC-NLS Document 3 Filed 06/28/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 4
3

18cv1394 GPC (NLS)

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

presently entitled to federal habeas relief because he has not alleged exhaustion of state 

court remedies.

In addition, 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. § 2244(d)(1)(A)-(D) (West 2006).

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).

CONCLUSION

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

DISMISSES the case without prejudice. To have the case reopened, Petitioner must, no 

Case 3:18-cv-01394-GPC-NLS Document 3 Filed 06/28/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 4
4

18cv1394 GPC (NLS)

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

later than August 30, 2018, (1) either pay the filing fee or provide adequate proof of his 

inability to pay, and (2) file a First Amended Petition which cures the pleading 

deficiency discussed above. For Petitioner’s convenience, the Clerk of Court shall 

attach to this Order a blank in forma pauperis application and a blank form petition.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 27, 2018

Case 3:18-cv-01394-GPC-NLS Document 3 Filed 06/28/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 4