Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-01568/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-01568-0/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

18-CV-1568 JLS (NLS)

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

JARED BENJAMIN MIMMS,

Petitioner,

v.

UNKNOWN,

Respondent.

Case No.: 18-CV-1568 JLS (NLS)

ORDER: (1) DENYING MOTION TO 

PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS; 

AND (2) DISMISSING CASE 

WITHOUT PREJUDICE AND WITH 

LEAVE TO AMEND

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

Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, (ECF No. 1), together with a request to proceed in 

forma pauperis, (ECF No. 2).

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 Petitioner’s financial status. 

A request to proceed in forma pauperis made by a state prisoner must include a certificate 

from the 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; Civil 

Local Rule 3.2. Petitioner has failed to provide the Court with the required Prison 

Certificate. 

Case 3:18-cv-01568-JLS-NLS Document 3 Filed 07/31/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 6
2

18-CV-1568 JLS (NLS)

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

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). 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 

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 not named 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 Petitioner is presently confined or the Director of the 

California Department of Corrections. Brittingham v. United States, 982 F.2d 378, 379 

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

/ / /

Case 3:18-cv-01568-JLS-NLS Document 3 Filed 07/31/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 6
3

18-CV-1568 JLS (NLS)

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

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). Ordinarily, 

to satisfy the exhaustion requirement, a petitioner must “‘fairly present[]’ his federal claim 

to the highest state court with jurisdiction to consider it, or . . . demonstrate[] that no state 

remedy remains available.” Johnson v. Zenon, 88 F.3d 828, 829 (9th Cir. 1996) (citations 

omitted). 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. 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.” See Duncan v. Henry, 

513 U.S. 364, 365–66 (1995) (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. 

Further, the Court cautions Petitioner that under the Antiterrorism and Effective 

Death Penalty Act of 1996 (“AEDPA”) a one-year period of limitation applies 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 runs 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 3:18-cv-01568-JLS-NLS Document 3 Filed 07/31/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 6
4

18-CV-1568 JLS (NLS)

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).

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 3:18-cv-01568-JLS-NLS Document 3 Filed 07/31/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 6
5

18-CV-1568 JLS (NLS)

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); 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). 

Here, Petitioner claims that he “is being extorted and defrauded based on wealth and 

pedigree,” and is “being framed for the death of William Morva, someone Petitioner does 

not know, by the state of Virginia.” (ECF No. 1, at 1.) He also claims that “the state of 

California is now trying to put Petitioner away for life to di on illegal mental health oriented 

waivers.” (Id.) 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.

ABSTENTION

Finally, the Petition must be dismissed because it appears that this Court is barred 

from consideration of his claims by the abstention doctrine announced in Younger v. 

Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971). Under Younger, federal courts may not interfere with ongoing 

state criminal proceedings absent extraordinary circumstances. Id. at 45–46; see Middlesex 

County Ethics Comm. v. Garden State Bar Ass’n, 457 U.S. 423, 431 (1982) (Younger

“espouse[d] a strong federal policy against federal-court interference with pending state 

judicial proceedings.”) These concerns are particularly important in the habeas context 

where a state prisoner’s conviction may be reversed on appeal, thereby rendering the 

federal issue moot. Sherwood v. Tompkins, 716 F.2d 632, 634 (9th Cir. 1983).

Absent extraordinary circumstances, abstention under Younger is required when: (1) 

state judicial proceedings are ongoing; (2) the state proceedings involve important state 

interests; and (3) the state proceedings afford an adequate opportunity to raise the federal 

issue. Columbia Basin Apartment Ass’n v. City of Pasco, 268 F.3d 791, 799 (9th Cir. 

2001). All three of these criteria are satisfied here. Petitioner appears to be in pre-trial 

custody in the George Bailey Detention Center. (See ECF No. 1, at 1.) Thus Petitioner’s 

Case 3:18-cv-01568-JLS-NLS Document 3 Filed 07/31/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 5 of 6
6

18-CV-1568 JLS (NLS)

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

criminal case appears to be ongoing in the state courts. Further, there is no question that 

the state criminal proceedings involve important state interests. 

Finally, Petitioner has failed to show that he has not been afforded an adequate

opportunity to raise the federal issues on direct appeal. Petitioner offers nothing to support 

a contention that the state courts do not provide him an adequate opportunity to raise his 

claims, and this Court specifically rejects such an argument. Abstention is therefore 

required. See Huffman v. Pursue, Ltd., 420 U.S. 592, 608 (1975) (Younger applies to state 

appellate proceedings as well as ongoing proceedings in state trial court); see also Drury 

v. Cox, 457 F.2d 764, 764–65 (9th Cir. 1972) (“[O]nly in the most unusual circumstances 

is a defendant entitled to have federal interposition by way of injunction or habeas corpus 

until after the jury comes in, judgment has been appealed from that the case concluded in 

the state courts.”).

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the Petitioner’s request to proceed in forma pauperis is 

DENIED, (ECF No. 2), and the Petition is DISMISSED without prejudice and with leave 

to amend, (ECF No. 1). If Petitioner wishes to proceed with this case, he must, no later 

than September 21, 2018: (1) pay the $5.00 filing fee or submit adequate proof of his 

inability to pay the fee; and (2) file a First Amended Petition that cures the pleading 

deficiencies outlined in this Order. The Clerk of Court is directed to mail Petitioner a 

blank motion to proceed in forma pauperis form and a blank First Amended Petition form 

together with a copy of this Order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 31, 2018

Case 3:18-cv-01568-JLS-NLS Document 3 Filed 07/31/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 6 of 6