Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_14-cv-01447/USCOURTS-casd-3_14-cv-01447-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 28:2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (federal)

---

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

HOMER SHANNON CARSON, Civil No. 14-1447 AJB (JMA)

Petitioner,

ORDER DISMISSING CASE

WITHOUT PREJUDICE AND

WITH LEAVE TO AMEND

v.

STATE OF CALIFORNIA,

Respondent.

Petitioner Homer Shannon Carson (“Petitioner”), a state prisoner proceeding

pro se, has paid the $5.00 filing fee and has submitted a Petition for Writ of Habeas

Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. (Doc. No. 1.)

I. FAILURE TO NAME PROPER RESPONDENT

Review of the Petition reveals that Petitioner has failed to name a proper

respondent. In a federal habeas petition, a state prisoner must name as a respondent

the state officer having custody of him. 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. Id.

The warden is the typical respondent. Stanley v. Cal. Sup. Ct., 21 F.3d 359, 360

(9th Cir.1994) (per curiam). 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

-1- 14cv1447

Case 3:14-cv-01447-AJB-JMA Document 2 Filed 06/23/14 Page 1 of 5
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

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 incorrectly named “State of California” as the 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). 

II. 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

-2- 14cv1447

Case 3:14-cv-01447-AJB-JMA Document 2 Filed 06/23/14 Page 2 of 5
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

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 in the Petition does Petitioner allege that he raised his claims in the

California Supreme Court. 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 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 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

-3- 14cv1447

Case 3:14-cv-01447-AJB-JMA Document 2 Filed 06/23/14 Page 3 of 5
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

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.

III. FAILURE TO STATE A COGNIZABLE FEDERAL CLAIM 

Additionally, in accordance with Rule 4 of the rules governing § 2254 cases,

Petitioner has failed to allege that his state court conviction or sentence violates the

United States Constitution. 

28 U.S.C. § 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 is in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.

28 U.S.C. § 2254(a) (emphasis added). See Hernandez v. Ylst, 930 F.2d 714, 719 (9th

Cir. 1991); Mannhalt v. Reed, 847 F.2d 576, 579 (9th Cir. 1988); Kealohapauole v.

Shimoda, 800 F.2d 1463, 1464–65 (9th Cir. 1986). Thus, to present a cognizable

federal habeas corpus claim under Section 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). 

Here, Petitioner asks the Court to compel California to act pursuant to the

Interstate Agreement on Detainers. In no way does Petitioner claim he is “in custody

in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C.

§ 2254.

//

//

//

//

-4- 14cv1447

Case 3:14-cv-01447-AJB-JMA Document 2 Filed 06/23/14 Page 4 of 5
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

CONCLUSION

As set forth above, the Court DISMISSES the Petition without prejudice and

with leave to amend. To reopen the case, Petitioner must file an amended Petition no

later than August 11, 2014. The Clerk of Court is directed to mail Petitioner a blank

First Amended Petition form with a copy of this Order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: June 23, 2014

Hon. Anthony J. Battaglia

U.S. District Judge

-5- 14cv1447

Case 3:14-cv-01447-AJB-JMA Document 2 Filed 06/23/14 Page 5 of 5