Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_09-cv-02412/USCOURTS-casd-3_09-cv-02412-0/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

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

K:\COMMON\EVERYONE\_EFILE-PROSE\DMS\09cv2412 dismiss.wpd, 1149 -1-

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

WILBUR LANN PITTMAN, Civil No. 09-2412 DMS (PCL)

Petitioner,

ORDER DISMISSING CASE 

v. WITHOUT PREJUDICE

ROBERT HERNANDEZ, Warden

Respondent.

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

Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254.

FAILURE TO SATISFY FILING FEE REQUIREMENT

Petitioner has failed to pay the $5.00 filing fee and has failed to move to proceed in forma

pauperis. This Court cannot proceed until Petitioner has either paid the $5.00 filing fee or

qualified to proceed in forma pauperis. See Rule 3(a), 28 U.S.C. foll. § 2254. 

VENUE

A petition for writ of habeas corpus may be filed in the United States District Court of

either the judicial district in which the petitioner is presently confined or the judicial district in

which he was convicted and sentenced. See 28 U.S.C. § 2241(d); Braden v. 30th Judicial

Circuit Court, 410 U.S. 484, 497 (1973). It is unclear where Petitioner is presently confined and

Petitioner does not specify where his state court conviction occurred. Thus, it is currently unclear

whether this Court has jurisdiction in this matter. Petitioner must tell the Court where he is

Case 3:09-cv-02412-DMS-PCL Document 2 Filed 11/04/09 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

K:\COMMON\EVERYONE\_EFILE-PROSE\DMS\09cv2412 dismiss.wpd, 1149 -2-

incarcerated and where suffered the conviction which he seeks to challenge in this matter.

FAILURE TO STATE GROUNDS FOR RELIEF IN PETITION

In addition, Rule 2(c) of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases states that the petition

“shall set forth in summary form the facts supporting each of the grounds . . . specified [in the

petition].” Rule 2(c), 28 U.S.C. foll. § 2254. See also Boehme v. Maxwell, 423 F.2d 1056, 1058

(9th Cir. 1970) (trial court’s dismissal of federal habeas proceeding affirmed where petitioner

made conclusory allegations instead of factual allegations showing that he was entitled to relief).

Here, Petitioner has violated Rule 2(c). While courts should liberally interpret pro se pleadings

with leniency and understanding, this should not place on the reviewing court the entire onus of

ferreting out grounds for relief. Zichko v. Idaho, 247 F.3d 1015, 1020-21 (9th Cir. 2001). Here, the

Petition contains no allegations and incomprehensible supporting facts including “healthcare,

manager/chials[sic]. medical officer.” (Pet. at 6.) 

In order to satisfy Rule 2(c), Petitioner must point to a “real possibility of constitutional

error.” Cf. Blackledge v. Allison, 431 U.S. 63, 75 n.7 (1977) (internal quotation marks omitted).

Facts must be stated, in the petition, with sufficient detail to enable the Court to determine, from

the face of the petition, whether further habeas corpus review is warranted. Adams v.

Armontrout, 897 F.2d 332, 334 (8th Cir. 1990). Moreover, the allegations should be sufficiently

specific to permit the respondent to assert appropriate objections and defenses. Harris v. Allen,

739 F. Supp. 564, 565 (W.D. Okla. 1989). The Court finds that the lack of grounds for relief in

the Petition prevents the Respondent from being able to assert appropriate objections and

defenses.

Due to Petitioner’s unsatisfactory showing, the Court dismisses the action without

prejudice. Should Petitioner decide to file a new petition, he is advised to clearly and succinctly

state all grounds for relief using the First Amended Petition form sent to Petitioner with this

order.

//

//

//

Case 3:09-cv-02412-DMS-PCL Document 2 Filed 11/04/09 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

K:\COMMON\EVERYONE\_EFILE-PROSE\DMS\09cv2412 dismiss.wpd, 1149 -3-

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). 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. 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:

//

//

//

Case 3:09-cv-02412-DMS-PCL Document 2 Filed 11/04/09 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

K:\COMMON\EVERYONE\_EFILE-PROSE\DMS\09cv2412 dismiss.wpd, 1149 -4-

(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.A. § 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 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 SIGN PETITION

Rule 2(c) of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases provides that “[t]he petition shall

be typewritten or legibly handwritten and shall be signed under penalty of perjury by the

petitioner.” Rule 2(c), 28 U.S.C. foll. § 2254 (emphasis added). Here, Petitioner has failed to

sign the Petition. 

//

Case 3:09-cv-02412-DMS-PCL Document 2 Filed 11/04/09 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

K:\COMMON\EVERYONE\_EFILE-PROSE\DMS\09cv2412 dismiss.wpd, 1149 -5-

CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, the Court DISMISSES the petition for failure to (1) satisfy the

filing fee requirement, (2) allege venue is proper in this Court, (3) state a cognizable claim for

relief, (4) allege exhaustion of state judicial remedies, and (5) sign his Petition. If Petitioner

wishes to proceed with this case, he must submit, no later than January 5, 2010, a copy of this

Order with the $5.00 fee or with adequate proof of his inability to pay the fee, AND a First

Amended Petition that cures the deficiencies outlined above. The Clerk of Court is directed to

send Petitioner a blank Southern District of California In Forma Pauperis Application, and a

First Amended Petition form along with a copy of this Order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: November 4, 2009

HON. DANA M. SABRAW

United States District Judge

Case 3:09-cv-02412-DMS-PCL Document 2 Filed 11/04/09 Page 5 of 5