Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-01760/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-01760-0/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 

18cv1760 GPC (RBB) 

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 

JOHN MICHAEL SHEA, 

Petitioner,

v. 

UNKNOWN, 

Respondent.

 Case No.: 18cv1760 GPC (RBB) 

ORDER DENYING IN FORMA 

PAUPERIS APPLICATION AND 

DISMISSING CASE WITHOUT 

PREJUDICE 

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 

and as such the request to proceed in forma pauperis is denied.

/ / / 

Case 3:18-cv-01760-GPC-RBB Document 4 Filed 08/14/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 5
2 

18cv1760 GPC (RBB) 

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 NAME A PROPER RESPONDENT 

Additionally, 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 failed to name a Respondent. 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 3:18-cv-01760-GPC-RBB Document 4 Filed 08/14/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 5
3 

18cv1760 GPC (RBB) 

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 REMDIES

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 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., ECF No. 1 at 6-7.) 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: 

Case 3:18-cv-01760-GPC-RBB Document 4 Filed 08/14/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 5
4 

18cv1760 GPC (RBB) 

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) 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). 

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. 

CUSTODY REQUIREMENT 

Finally, upon review of the documents filed in this case, it is not clear that 

Petitioner is in custody pursuant to the conviction he challenges in the Petition. “Subject 

Case 3:18-cv-01760-GPC-RBB Document 4 Filed 08/14/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 5
5 

18cv1760 GPC (RBB) 

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

matter jurisdiction under the federal habeas corpus statute, 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a), is limited 

to those persons ‘in custody pursuant to the judgment of a State.’” Brock v. Weston, 31 

F.3d 887, 889 (9th Cir. 1994); see also 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c)(3). It is a jurisdictional 

requirement that, at the time a habeas petition is filed, “the habeas petitioner be ‘in 

custody’ under the conviction or sentence under attack.” Maleng v. Cook, 490 U.S. 488, 

490-91 (1989) (emphasis added) (citing 28 U.S.C. §§ 2241(c)(3) & 2254(a)); see Carafas 

v. LaVallee, 391 U.S. 234, 238 (1968)). 

Here, Petitioner is challenging his 1990 conviction for which he was sentenced to 

four years and eight months. Petitioner states that he was released from that sentence in 

1995. (Pet., ECF No. 1 at 1-2.) Thus, while Petitioner is currently incarcerated, it 

appears he is no longer in custody pursuant to the conviction he now challenges. 

“[O]nce the sentence imposed for a conviction has completely expired, the collateral 

consequences of that conviction are not themselves sufficient to render an individual ‘in 

custody’ for the purposes of a habeas attack upon it.” Maleng, 290 U.S. at 490; see 

Feldman v. Perrill, 902 F.2d 1445, 1448 (9th Cir. 1990) (stating that an expired 

conviction cannot satisfy the “in custody” requirement). 

CONCLUSION 

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

DISMISSES the case without prejudice and with leave to amend. To have the case 

reopened, Petitioner must, no later than October 15, 2018: (1) either pay the filing fee or 

provide adequate proof of his inability to pay and (2) file a First Amended Petition that 

cures the deficiencies outlined in this Order. For Petitioner’s convenience, the Clerk of 

Court shall attach to this Order a blank in forma pauperis form and a blank Amended 

Petition form. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: August 14, 2018 

Case 3:18-cv-01760-GPC-RBB Document 4 Filed 08/14/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 5 of 5