Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_13-cv-00868/USCOURTS-casd-3_13-cv-00868-1/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

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

DAVID B. TURNER, Jr., Civil

No.

13-0868 LAB (WVG)

Petitioner,

ORDER DISMISSING CASE 

WITHOUT PREJUDICE AND

WITH LEAVE TO AMEND

v.

CAPTAIN MADSON, et al.,

Respondents.

On April 10, 2013, Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed a Petition

for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. (ECF No. 1.) The case was

dismissed without prejudice and with leave to amend on April 15, 2013. (ECF No. 2). 

Petitioner was given until June 18, 2013, to satisfy the filing fee requirement and file a

First Amended Petition that cured the pleading deficiencies outlined in the Court’s

Order. (Id.)

On June 19, 2013, Petitioner filed a motion to proceed in forma pauperis, which

was granted on July 2, 2013, and, after being granted an extension of time, a First

Amended Petition on July 16. (See ECF Nos. 3, 6-7.) The First Amended Petition was

dismissed without prejudice and with leave to amend on July 19, 2013, and Petitioner

was given until September 5, 2013, to file a Second Amended Petition that cured the

/ / /

I:\Everyone\_EFILE-PROSE\LAB\13cv0868_dismiss SAP.wpd, 8813 -1- 13cv0868

Case 3:13-cv-00868-LAB-WVG Document 10 Filed 08/08/13 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

pleading deficiencies outlined in the Court’s dismissal Order. (ECF No. 8.) Petitioner

filed a Second Amended Petition on August 1, 2013. (ECF No. 9.)

FAILURE TO NAME PROPER RESPONDENT

Review of the Petition reveals that Petitioner has again 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 courtslack personal jurisdiction

when a habeas petition fails to name a proper respondent. See 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).

Here, Petitioner has incorrectly named “Captain Madson” and “Public Defenders”

as Respondents. In order for this Court to entertain the Petition filed in this action,

Petitioner must name the person in charge of the state correctional facility in which

Petitioner is presently confined. 

EXHAUSTION AND FAILURE TO STATE A COGNIZABLE CLAIM

Petitioner alleges four claims in his petition. Claim one alleges his due process

rights were violated and he received ineffective assistance of counsel, and, according to

Petitioner, is exhausted. (Second Am. Pet. at 6, ECF No. 9.) Claims two through four

are captioned as challenges to the conditions of his confinement, but, upon reading the

allegations, claims two and three are attacks on his convictions, while claim four alleges

excessive force was used upon him while in custody. (Id. at 6-9.) In addition, claims

two through four are unexhausted. (Id. at 7-9.)

Challengesto the fact or duration of confinement are brought by petition for a writ

of habeas corpus, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254; challengesto conditions of confinement

I:\Everyone\_EFILE-PROSE\LAB\13cv0868_dismiss SAP.wpd, 8813 -2- 13cv0868

Case 3:13-cv-00868-LAB-WVG Document 10 Filed 08/08/13 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

are brought pursuant to the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1983. See Preiser v.

Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 500 (1973). When a state prisoner is challenging the very fact

or duration of his physical imprisonment, and the relief he seeks is a determination that

he is entitled to immediate release or a speedier release from that imprisonment, his sole

federal remedy is a writ of habeas corpus. Id. at 500. On the other hand, a § 1983 action

is a proper remedy for a prisoner who is making a constitutional challenge to the

conditions of his confinement, but not to the fact or length of his custody. Id. at 499;

McIntosh v. United States Parole Comm’n, 115 F.3d 809, 811-12 (10th Cir. 1997). 

To the extent Petitioner is seeking to attack the conditions of his confinement, his

claims are not cognizable on federal habeasreview. See 28 U.S.C. 2254(a); Preiser, 411

U.S. at 500; Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 480-85 (1994). “Section 2254 applies

only to collateral attacks on state court judgments.” McGuire v. Blubaum, 376 F. Supp.

284, 285 (D. Ariz. 1974). In addition, Petitioner currently has a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 case

pending in this Court in case no. 13cv1133 WQH (BGS). If the civil rights claims he

seeks to bring in this pleading relate to the matters alleged in case number 13cv1133

WQH (BGS), he should bring those claims in his current, pending civil rights case. If

they are new claims, he must file a new 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action which alleges those

claims. 

As to any habeas corpus claims Petitioner seeks to bring in this Court which seek

to invalidate his conviction, he has not alleged exhaustion as to claims two and three. 

Those claims appear to allege he was not properly advised of the consequences his guilty

plea. (See Pet. at 7-8.) If Petitioner wishes to bring those claims here, he must first

exhaust his state court 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

I:\Everyone\_EFILE-PROSE\LAB\13cv0868_dismiss SAP.wpd, 8813 -3- 13cv0868

Case 3:13-cv-00868-LAB-WVG Document 10 Filed 08/08/13 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

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).

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:

(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

wasinitially 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).

/ / /

I:\Everyone\_EFILE-PROSE\LAB\13cv0868_dismiss SAP.wpd, 8813 -4- 13cv0868

Case 3:13-cv-00868-LAB-WVG Document 10 Filed 08/08/13 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

PETITIONER MAY NOT ATTACK MORE THAN ONE CONVICTION 

IN A SINGLE HABEAS CORPUS ACTION

Finally, Petitioner attacks two separate convictions in thissingle proceeding. (See

Second Am. Pet. at 1, ECF No. 9.) Unless the criminal matters he seeks to challenge

were consolidated, Petitioner must file a separate federal habeas corpus action pursuant

to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 for each state court conviction he seeks to challenge.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the Court DISMISSES this action without prejudice

and with leave to amend. If Petitioner wishes to proceed with a 28 U.S.C. § 2254 action,

he must, no later than September 26, 2013, file a Third Amended Petition that cures

the pleading deficiencies outlined in this Order. The Clerk of Court is directed to mail

Petitioner a blank Third Amended Petition form and a blank 42 U.S.C. § 1983 civil

rights complaint form together with a copy of this Order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: August 7, 2013

HONORABLE LARRY ALAN BURNS

United States District Judge

I:\Everyone\_EFILE-PROSE\LAB\13cv0868_dismiss SAP.wpd, 8813 -5- 13cv0868

Case 3:13-cv-00868-LAB-WVG Document 10 Filed 08/08/13 Page 5 of 5