Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-02578/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-02578-0/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

ffi*L

1

2

«H0VI5 PM 3s 10

3

v*

4

JP£B&££

5

6

7

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

11 RICHARD EARL GEORGE. Case No.: 16-2578 BEN (PCL)

12 Petitioner.

ORDER: (1) GRANTING MOTION

TO PROCEED IN FORMA

PAUPERIS; and (2) DISMISSING

CASE WITHOUT PREJUDICE AND

WITH LEAVE TO AMEND

13 y.

14 PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF

CALIFORNIA, 15

Respondent.

16

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

Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 together with a motion to proceed in forma

pauperis.

17

18

19

20 MOTION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS

Petitioner has $0.00 on account at the California correctional institution 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, and allows Petitioner to

prosecute the above-referenced action without being required to prepay fees or costs and

without being required to post security. The Clerk ofthe Court shall file the Petition for

Writ ofHabeas Corpus without prepayment ofthe filing fee.

21

22

23

24

25

26

27 III

28 III

l

16--7S7R RF.N CPP.T.l

Case 3:16-cv-02578-BEN-PCL Document 4 Filed 11/15/16 Page 1 of 5
r7

l FAILURE TO NAME 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

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 of habeas 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 incorrectly named “People ofthe State ofCalifornia,” as

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 Director ofthe California Department ofCorrections.

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

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 III

2

1 fi-7578 RF.N fPr.T .'i

Case 3:16-cv-02578-BEN-PCL Document 4 Filed 11/15/16 Page 2 of 5
J!

\

1 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); 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 oflaw

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).

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

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.) IfPetitioner 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 oflimitation 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 ofthe time for seeking such review;

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

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

by State action in violation ofthe Constitution or laws ofthe United

States is removed, ifthe applicant was prevented from filing by such State

action;

25

26

27

28

3

16-7578 RF.N CPCT .'l

Case 3:16-cv-02578-BEN-PCL Document 4 Filed 11/15/16 Page 3 of 5
I

'■0

(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

1

2

3

4

(D) the date on which the factual predicate ofthe claim or claims

presented could have been discovered through the exercise of due

diligence.

5

6

28 U.S.C.A. § 2244(d)( 1 )(A)-(D) (West Supp. 2002).

The statute oflimitations 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). 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 of

limitations 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]fit 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 ofstate

court remedies.

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22 CONCLUSION

Forthe foregoing reasons, the Court DISMISSES the Petition without prejudice and

with leave to amend. To have this case reopened, Petitioner must, no later than December

30,2016, file a First Amended Petition that cures the pleading deficiencies outlined in this

23

24

25

26 III

27 III

28 III

4

16-9S78 RFN rPCT.l

Case 3:16-cv-02578-BEN-PCL Document 4 Filed 11/15/16 Page 4 of 5
*

Order. The Clerk ofCourt is directed to mailPetitioner a blank FirstAmendedPetition

form together with a copy ofthis Order.

IT IS SO ORDEREP.

1

2

r~

3

November/S

&

4 DATED: ,2016

RogfflPFijBenitez

United States District Judge 5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

5

16-9S78 RF.NrPP.n

Case 3:16-cv-02578-BEN-PCL Document 4 Filed 11/15/16 Page 5 of 5