Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_19-cv-01578/USCOURTS-casd-3_19-cv-01578-1/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

19cv1578 CAB (MDD)

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

CHRISTOPHER D. WARSAW,

Petitioner,

v.

MARCUS POLLARD, Warden,

Respondent.

Case No.: 19cv1578 CAB (MDD)

ORDER: (1) DENYING REQUEST 

TO PROCEED IN FORMA 

PAUPERIS AS MOOT AND (2) 

DISMISSING FIRST AMENDED 

PETITION WITHOUT PREJUDICE

On August 7, 2019, Petitioner, proceeding pro se, submitted a Petition for Writ of 

Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, along with a request to proceed in forma 

pauperis. (See ECF Nos. 1 & 2.) On September 4, 2019, Petitioner paid the requisite 

filing fee. (See ECF No. 3.) In its September 6, 2019 Order, the Court denied 

Petitioner’s request to proceed in forma pauperis as moot and dismissed the case without

prejudice because Petitioner failed to state a cognizable claim. Petitioner was instructed 

that to have this case reopened he had to file a First Amended Petition no later than 

November 12, 2019. On October 28, 2019, Petitioner filed a First Amended Petition 

(ECF No. 13) pursuant to this Court’s Order, along with another request to proceed in 

forma pauperis. (ECF No. 14.)

/ / /

/ / /

Case 3:19-cv-01578-CAB-MDD Document 15 Filed 10/29/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 4
2

19cv1578 CAB (MDD)

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

REQUEST TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS 

As noted above, Petitioner submitted the $5.00 filing fee on September 4, 2019. 

(ECF No. 3.) Because Petitioner has paid the filing fee, the Court DENIES Petitioner’s 

application to proceed in forma pauperis as moot.

FAILURE TO ALLEGE EXHAUSTION OF STATE JUDICIAL REMEDIES

The First Amended Petition must be dismissed because Petitioner has failed to 

allege exhaustion of state judicial remedies. 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. 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.

/ / /

/ / /

Case 3:19-cv-01578-CAB-MDD Document 15 Filed 10/29/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 4
3

19cv1578 CAB (MDD)

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

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:

(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).

/ / /

Case 3:19-cv-01578-CAB-MDD Document 15 Filed 10/29/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 4
4

19cv1578 CAB (MDD)

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

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.

CONCLUSION

Accordingly, the Court DENIES the request to proceed in forma pauperis as moot

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

this case reopened, Petitioner must file a Second Amended Petition which cures the 

pleading deficiency outlined in this Order, no later than December 30, 2019. For 

Petitioner’s convenience, the Clerk of Court shall include with this Order, a blank 

amended petition form.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 29, 2019

Case 3:19-cv-01578-CAB-MDD Document 15 Filed 10/29/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 4