Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-02219/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-02219-0/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

18cv2219 CAB (WVG)

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

ISRAEL SOTO,

Petitioner,

v.

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF 

CALIFORNIA,

Respondent.

Case No.: 18cv2219 CAB (WVG)

ORDER 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.

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. 

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. 

Case 3:18-cv-02219-CAB-WVG Document 2 Filed 10/01/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 5
2

18cv2219 CAB (WVG)

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

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 incorrectly named “The People of ths State of California,” as 

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). 

FAILURE TO STATE A COGNIZABLE FEDERAL CLAIM

Additionally, Petitioner has failed to allege that his state court conviction or 

sentence violates the Constitution of the United States.

/ / /

/ / /

Case 3:18-cv-02219-CAB-WVG Document 2 Filed 10/01/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 5
3

18cv2219 CAB (WVG)

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

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). 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.” See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a). 

Here, Petitioner states his claim as follows: “[W]hether section 490.2 and 1170/18 

[of the California Penal Code], which were enacted as part of Proposition 47 . . . are 

properly construed as providing eligibility to resentence a theft of elder conviction . . . to 

misdemeanor when value of property taken is under $950.” (Pet., ECF No. 1 at 6.) 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. 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 one or more of his or her federal rights have been violated. The Supreme 

Case 3:18-cv-02219-CAB-WVG Document 2 Filed 10/01/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 5
4

18cv2219 CAB (WVG)

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

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 the due process 

of law guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment, he must say so, not only in federal 

court, but in state court.” Id. (emphasis added).

Additionally, the Court cautions Petitioner that under the Antiterrorism and 

Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (Act), signed into law on April 24, 1996, 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

(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 Supp. 2002).

The Court also notes that 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), cert. denied, 529 U.S. 1104 (2000). 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] 

Case 3:18-cv-02219-CAB-WVG Document 2 Filed 10/01/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 5
5

18cv2219 CAB (WVG)

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

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

Based on the foregoing, the Court DISMISSES this action without prejudice and 

with leave to amend. To have this case reopened, Petitioner must, no later than 

December 4, 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 

set forth above. 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: September 28, 2018

Case 3:18-cv-02219-CAB-WVG Document 2 Filed 10/01/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 5 of 5