Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-00533/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-00533-0/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

18cv0533-LAB (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

GILBERT CHORA,

Petitioner,

v.

UNKNOWN,

Respondent.

Case No.: 18cv0533-LAB (MDD)

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO 

PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS

AND DISMISSING CASE WITHOUT 

PREJUDICE

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

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

(ECF Nos. 1-2.) The Court denies Petitioner’s Motion to proceed in forma pauperis and 

dismisses Petition without prejudice because Petitioner has failed to satisfy the filing fee 

requirement, failed to name a proper respondent, failed to use a court-approved petition 

form, failed to state a claim for relief, and failed to allege exhaustion of state court 

remedies. 

MOTION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS

The request to proceed in forma pauperis is denied because Petitioner has not 

provided the Court with sufficient information to determine his financial status. A request 

to proceed in forma pauperis made by a state prisoner must include a certificate from the 

Case 3:18-cv-00533-LAB-MDD Document 3 Filed 03/19/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 6
2

18cv0533-LAB (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

warden or other appropriate officer showing the amount of money or securities Petitioner 

has on account in the institution. Rule 3(a)(2), 28 U.S.C. foll. § 2254; Local Rule 3.2. 

Petitioner has failed to provide the Court with the required Prison Certificate. 

Accordingly, the Court DENIES the request to proceed in forma pauperis. Because

this Court cannot proceed until Petitioner has either paid the $5.00 filing fee or qualified 

to proceed in forma pauperis, the Court DISMISSES the case without prejudice. See Rule 

3(a), 28 U.S.C. foll. § 2254. 

FAILURE TO NAME PROPER RESPONDENT

Review of the 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. foll. § 2254). “Typically, that person is the warden of the facility in which 

the petitioner is incarcerated.” Id. 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 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 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 

Case 3:18-cv-00533-LAB-MDD Document 3 Filed 03/19/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 6
3

18cv0533-LAB (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

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 failed to name a 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 he is presently confined or the Director of the California 

Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. Brittingham v. United States, 982 F.2d 378, 

379 (9th Cir. 1992) (per curiam).

FAILURE TO USE PROPER FORM

A Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus must be submitted in accordance with the 

Local Rules of the United States District Court for the Southern District of California. See

Rule 2(d), 28 U.S.C. foll. § 2254. In order to comply with the Local Rules, the petition 

must be submitted upon a court-approved form and in accordance with the instructions 

approved by the Court. Id.; S. D. Cal. CivLR HC.2(b). Presently, Petitioner has not 

submitted the application for writ of habeas corpus on a court-approved form. 

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.

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

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 

Case 3:18-cv-00533-LAB-MDD Document 3 Filed 03/19/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 6
4

18cv0533-LAB (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

States.” See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a). Here, Petitioner only claims that he has been 

incarcerated too long. (ECF No. 1 at 2.) In no way does he claim he is “in custody in 

violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254.

FAILURE TO ALLEGE EXHAUSTION OF STATE JUDICIAL REMEDIES

Finally, federal habeas petitioners who wish to challenge either their state court 

conviction or the length of their confinement 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. 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 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. The burden of proving that a claim has been exhausted lies with 

the petitioner. Cartwright v. Cupp, 650 F.2d 1103, 1104 (9th Cir. 1981).

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;

Case 3:18-cv-00533-LAB-MDD Document 3 Filed 03/19/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 6
5

18cv0533-LAB (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

(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.A. § 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).

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

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 attached 

exhibits 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 satisfied the filing fee requirement, has not used 

a proper petition form, has not named a proper respondent, has not alleged a cognizable 

federal claim, and has not alleged exhaustion of state court remedies. 

The Motion to proceed in forma pauperis is DENIED and the Petition is 

DISMISSED without prejudice. To have this case reopened, Petitioner must submit, no 

later than May 14, 2018, a copy of this Order with the $5.00 fee or with adequate proof 

of his inability to pay the fee and file a First Amended Petition which cures the pleading 

Case 3:18-cv-00533-LAB-MDD Document 3 Filed 03/19/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 5 of 6
6

18cv0533-LAB (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

defects identified above. The Clerk of Court shall send Petitioner a blank Southern District 

of California in forma pauperis application and a blank Southern of California amended 

petition form with a copy of this Order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 16, 2018

Hon. Larry Alan Burns

United States District Judge

Case 3:18-cv-00533-LAB-MDD Document 3 Filed 03/19/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 6 of 6