Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-01737/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-01737-0/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

16cv1737 JLS (PCL)

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

JUSTIN COYLE,

Petitioner,

v.

BILL GORE, Sheriff,

Respondent.

Case No. 16cv1737 JLS (PCL)

ORDER DISMISSING CASE 

WITHOUT PREJUDICE AND WITH 

LEAVE TO AMEND

Petitioner, a prisoner proceeding pro se, has paid the $5.00 filing fee and has filed a 

Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254.

FAILURE TO ALLEGE EXHAUSTION OF STATE JUDICAL 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 

Case 3:16-cv-01737-JLS-PCL Document 3 Filed 07/27/16 Page 1 of 4
2

16cv1737 JLS (PCL)

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

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. In fact, he specifically indicates he did not seek review in the 

California Supreme Court. (See Pet. at 7.) 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); 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

/ / /

/ / /

Case 3:16-cv-01737-JLS-PCL Document 3 Filed 07/27/16 Page 2 of 4
3

16cv1737 JLS (PCL)

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

(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).

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 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 

Constitution of the United States.

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 is in custody in violation of the 

Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.

Case 3:16-cv-01737-JLS-PCL Document 3 Filed 07/27/16 Page 3 of 4
4

16cv1737 JLS (PCL)

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

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

Although not entirely clear, Petitioner appears to argue he was not properly credited 

for time served and that the Sheriff’s Department sent him a “fake” letter regarding 

rejection of a habeas corpus petition Petitioner attempted to file in the San Diego Superior 

Court. (See Pet. at 7.) 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. 

Further, the Court notes that Petitioner cannot simply amend his Petition to state a 

federal habeas claim and then refile the amended petition in this case. As discussed above, 

Petitioner must exhaust state judicial remedies before bringing his claims via federal 

habeas. To properly exhaust state court judicial remedies a petitioner must allege, in state 

court, how one or more of his or her federal rights have been violated. See Duncan, 513 

U.S. at 365–66.

CONCLUSION

For the reasons discussed above, the Petition is DISMISSED without prejudice and 

with leave to amend. To have this case reopened, Petitioner must (1) either pay the filing 

fee or provide adequate proof of his inability to pay AND (2) file a First Amended Petition 

which cures the pleading deficiencies discussed above, no later than September 23, 2016. 

For Petitioner’s convenience, the Clerk of Court shall attach to this Order a blank In 

Forma Pauperis Application and a blank First Amended Petition form.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 27, 2016

Case 3:16-cv-01737-JLS-PCL Document 3 Filed 07/27/16 Page 4 of 4