Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-01173/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-01173-1/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

17cv1173-WQH-JMA

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

JOSE JUAREZ,

Plaintiff,

v.

M. MARTEL,

Defendant.

Case No.: 17cv1173-WQH-JMA

ORDER DISMISSING FIRST 

AMENDED PETITION WITHOUT 

PREJUDICE

On June 5, 2017, Petitioner, a prisoner proceeding pro se, filed a petition for writ 

of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. (ECF No. 1). In its June 22, 2017 Order, 

the Court dismissed this case without prejudice because Petitioner failed to satisfy the 

filing fee requirement and failed to state a cognizable claim for federal habeas relief. 

(ECF No. 2). Petitioner was instructed that to have this case reopened he had to, no later 

than August 21, 2017, (1) pay the filing fee or provide adequate proof of his inability to 

pay and (2) file a First Amended Petition. Id. On July 3, 2017, Petitioner submitted a 

motion to proceed in forma pauperis. (ECF No. 3). This Court granted the motion to 

proceed in forma pauperis on July 11, 2017. (ECF No. 4). Petitioner then filed a First 

Amended Petition on July 31, 2017. (ECF No. 5).

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

to state a cognizable federal claim. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a) sets forth the following scope of 

Case 3:17-cv-01173-WQH-JMA Document 6 Filed 09/01/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 3
2

17cv1173-WQH-JMA

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

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). 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 

§ 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.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a). 

In this case, Petitioner asks this Court to grant him permission to remain in the 

country upon his parole from prison. He also claims he is not receiving adequate medical 

care while incarcerated. In no way, however, does Petitioner claim he is “in custody in 

violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254.1

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. He must exhaust 

state judicial remedies before bringing his claims via federal habeas. State prisoners who 

wish to challenge their state court conviction 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. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b), (c); Granberry, 481 U.S. at 133-34. Moreover, to

properly exhaust state court judicial remedies a petitioner must allege, in state court, how 

 

1 Challenges to the fact or duration of confinement are brought by petition for a writ of habeas corpus, 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254; challenges to conditions of confinement are brought pursuant to the Civil 

Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1983. See Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 488-500 (1973); see also Heck v. 

Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 480-85 (1994).

Case 3:17-cv-01173-WQH-JMA Document 6 Filed 09/01/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 3
3

17cv1173-WQH-JMA

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

one or more of his or her federal rights have been violated. 

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 is plain from the petition that Petitioner is not presently entitled 

to federal habeas relief because he has not alleged that the state court violated his federal 

rights. Therefore, the Court DISMISSES the First Amended Petition without prejudice 

because Petitioner has failed to state a cognizable federal claim. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 1, 2017

Case 3:17-cv-01173-WQH-JMA Document 6 Filed 09/01/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 3