Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-01925/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-01925-0/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)

---

I

1 F! L SO

If OCT-4 AH Ms It I

2

3 tilRX- U.S. SI’ TRSCT fiOURT

i i K'RK <d'r e*hH>IWA

4

ft y-JD)' DiftiM 5

6

7

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

11 DAVID LERMA, Case No. 17cvl925 BEN (RBB)

12 Petitioner,

ORDER DISMISSING PETITION

13 v. WITHOUT PREJUDICE

14 UNKNOWN, Warden,

15 Respondent.

16

Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed a petition for writ ofhabeas

corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 and paid the requisite filing fee.

FAILURE TO NAME A PROPER RESPONDENT

Review ofthe 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. foil. § 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 ofthe institution in which the petitioner is incarcerated ... or the chief officer in

charge ofstate penal institutions.’” Id. (quoting Rule 2(a), 28 U.S.C. foil. § 2254

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

l

17r.v19?.S RFN fRRRT

Case 3:17-cv-01925-LAB-RBB Document 2 Filed 10/04/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 4
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 ofthe prison).’” Id. (quoting Rule 2,28 U.S.C.

foil. § 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 [ofthe petitioner] must be the

respondent.” Ashley v. Washington, 394 F.2d 125, 126 (9th Cir. 1968). This requirement

exists because a writ ofhabeas corpus acts upon the custodian ofthe 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 ofCorrections 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 ofthe

state correctional facility in which Petitioner is presently confined or the Secretary ofthe

California Department ofCorrections and Rehabilitation. Brittingham v. United States,

982 F.2d 378, 379 (9th Cir. 1992) (per curiam).

FAILURE TO ALLEGE EXHAUSTION OF STATE JUDICIAL REMEDIES

Further, habeas petitioners who wish to challenge either their state court conviction

or the length oftheir confinement in state prison, must first exhaust state judicial

remedies. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b), (c); Granberryv. 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: “Ifstate courts are to be given the

opportunity to correct alleged violations ofprisoners’ federal rights, they must surely be

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

2

17r.v1075 RFN ('RRR'I

Case 3:17-cv-01925-LAB-RBB Document 2 Filed 10/04/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 4
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 oflaw 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 review in the

California Supreme Court. {See Pet. at 6-9.) IfPetitioner has raised his claims in the

California Supreme Court he must so specify. “The burden ofproving 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); Rustv. 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 oflimitation shall apply to a

petition for a writ ofhabeas 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;

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

(B) the date on which the impediment to filing an application

created by State action in violation ofthe Constitution or laws of

the United States is removed, ifthe applicant was prevented from

filing by such State action;

21

22

23

(C) the date on which the constitutional right asserted was

initially recognized by the Supreme Court, ifthe right has been

newly recognized by the Supreme Court and made retroactively

applicable to cases on collateral review; or

24

25

26

27

28 III

3

17r.v1 RF.N fRRFR

Case 3:17-cv-01925-LAB-RBB Document 2 Filed 10/04/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 4
(D) the date on which the factual predicate ofthe claim or claims

presented could have been discovered through the exercise of

due diligence.

1

2

3

4 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); seeNino v. Galaza, 183 F.3d 1003,1006 (9th

Cir. 1999). Butsee 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 oflimitations does run

while a federal habeas petition is pending. Duncan v. Walker, 533 U.S. 167,181-82(2001).

Rule 4 ofthe Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases provides for summary dismissal

of a habeas petition “[i]f it plainly appears from the face ofthe petition and any exhibits

annexed to it that the petitioner is not entitled to reliefin the district court...” Rule 4, 28

U.S.C. foil. § 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.

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18 CONCLUSION

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

because Petitioner has failed to name a proper respondent and failed to state a cognizable

federal claim. To have this case reopened, Petitioner must, no later December 4.2017.

file a First Amended Petition that cures the pleading deficiencies set forth above. A

blank First Amended Petition is included with this OrderTSr Petitioner’s convenience.

20

21

22

23

24 IT IS SO ORDERED

r

25 Dated:

Hon^Roger T. Benite^

United States District Judge

26

27

28

4

17r.v1Q?S RF.NfRRRl

Case 3:17-cv-01925-LAB-RBB Document 2 Filed 10/04/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 4