Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-01789/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-01789-0/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

17cv1789 AJB (AGS)

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

STEVEN WAYNE BONILLA,

Petitioner,

v.

RON DAVIS, Warden,

Respondent.

Case No.: 17cv1789 AJB (AGS)

ORDER DISMISSING CASE 

WITHOUT PREJUDICE

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

corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254.

FAILURE TO SATISFY FILING FEE REQUIREMENT

Petitioner has failed to pay the $5.00 filing fee and has failed to move to proceed in 

forma pauperis. This Court cannot proceed until Petitioner has either paid the $5.00 

filing fee or qualified to proceed in forma pauperis. See Rule 3(a), 28 U.S.C. foll. § 2254. 

FAILURE TO STATE GROUNDS FOR RELIEF IN PETITION

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 

Case 3:17-cv-01789-AJB-AGS Document 2 Filed 09/18/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 6
2

17cv1789 AJB (AGS)

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

is in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United 

States.

28 U.S.C. § 2254(a) (emphasis added). 

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). In addition, Rule 2(c) of the Rules Governing Section 

2254 Cases states that the petition “shall set forth in summary form the facts supporting 

each of the grounds . . . specified [in the petition].” Rule 2(c), 28 U.S.C. foll. § 2254; see 

also Boehme v. Maxwell, 423 F.2d 1056, 1058 (9th Cir. 1970) (trial court’s dismissal of 

federal habeas proceeding affirmed where petitioner made conclusory allegations instead 

of factual allegations showing that he was entitled to relief). Here, Petitioner has violated 

Rule 2(c). Although Petitioner does not fail to state factual allegations in the Petition, he 

does fail to state any grounds for relief in the Petition.

While courts should liberally interpret pro se pleadings with leniency and 

understanding, this should not place on the reviewing court the entire onus of ferreting 

out grounds for relief. See Zichko v. Idaho, 247 F.3d 1015, 1020 (9th Cir. 2001). The 

Court finds that the Petition contains conclusory allegations without any grounds for 

relief. A federal court may not entertain a petition that contains allegations which are 

conclusory. 

This Court would have to engage in a tenuous analysis in order to attempt to 

identify and make sense of the Petition. In order to satisfy Rule 2(c), Petitioner must 

point to a “real possibility of constitutional error.” Cf. Blackledge v. Allison, 431 U.S. 63, 

75 n.7 (1977) (internal quotation marks omitted). The allegations should be sufficiently 

specific to permit the respondent to assert appropriate objections and defenses. Here, the 

lack of grounds for relief in the Petition prevents the Respondent from being able to 

assert appropriate objections and defenses.

/ / /

Case 3:17-cv-01789-AJB-AGS Document 2 Filed 09/18/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 6
3

17cv1789 AJB (AGS)

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

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). 

Ordinarily, to satisfy the exhaustion requirement, a petitioner must “‘fairly present[]’ his 

federal claim to the highest state court with jurisdiction to consider it, or . . . 

demonstrate[] that no state remedy remains available.” Johnson v. Zenon, 88 F.3d 828, 

829 (9th Cir. 1996) (citations omitted). 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. 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.” See Duncan v. Henry, 513 U.S. 364, 365-66 (1995)(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 5.) If Petitioner has raised his claims in the 

California Supreme Court he must so specify. 

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

Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA) a one-year period of limitation applies 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 runs 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;

Case 3:17-cv-01789-AJB-AGS Document 2 Filed 09/18/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 6
4

17cv1789 AJB (AGS)

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

(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).

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.

FAILURE TO NAME 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 

Case 3:17-cv-01789-AJB-AGS Document 2 Filed 09/18/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 6
5

17cv1789 AJB (AGS)

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

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 not named 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 Director of the 

California Department of Corrections. Brittingham v. United States, 982 F.2d 378, 379 

(9th Cir. 1992) (per curiam). 

JURISDICTION/VENUE

A petition for writ of habeas corpus may be filed in the United States District Court 

of either the judicial district in which the petitioner is presently confined or the judicial 

district in which he was convicted and sentenced. See 28 U.S.C. § 2241(d); Braden v. 

30th Judicial Circuit Court, 410 U.S. 484, 497 (1973). Petitioner is presently confined at 

San Quentin State Prison, located in Marin County, which is within the jurisdictional 

boundaries of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. See 

28 U.S.C. § 84(a). Petitioner appears to be challenging a state court conviction which 

occurred in Alameda County, which is also located within the jurisdictional boundaries of 

Case 3:17-cv-01789-AJB-AGS Document 2 Filed 09/18/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 5 of 6
6

17cv1789 AJB (AGS)

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 United States District Court for the Northern District of California. See 28 U.S.C. 

§ 84(a). If this is correct, this Court does not have jurisdiction over Petitioner’s petition. 

Petitioner is advised that if he seeks to challenge a state court conviction which occurred 

in Alameda County, she should file a petition for writ of habeas corpus in the United 

States District Court for the Northern District of California.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the Court DISMISSES the Petition without prejudice 

and with leave to amend. If Petitioner wishes to proceed with this case, he must, no later 

than November 21, 2017: (1) pay the $5.00 filing fee or submit adequate proof of his 

inability to pay the fee; and (2) file a First Amended Petition that cures the pleading 

deficiencies outlined in this Order. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 18, 2017

Case 3:17-cv-01789-AJB-AGS Document 2 Filed 09/18/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 6 of 6