Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-01925/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-01925-2/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

17cv1925 LAB (RBB)

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 LERMA,

Petitioner,

v.

RAYMOND MADDEN, Warden,

Respondent.

Case No. 17cv1925 LAB (RBB)

ORDER DISMISSING PETITION 

WITHOUT PREJUDICE AND WITH 

LEAVE TO AMEND

On September 21, 2017, Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed a 

petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 and paid the requisite filing fee. 

(ECF No.1.) The Court dismissed the action without prejudice and with leave to amend 

on October 4, 2017 because Petitioner had failed to name a proper respondent and had 

failed to allege exhaustion of his state judicial remedies. (ECF No. 2.) Petitioner was 

given until December 4, 2017 to file a First Amended Petition that cured the pleading 

deficiencies outlined in the Court’s dismissal Order. (Id.) 

On December 2, 2017, Petitioner constructively filed a First Amended Petition. 

(ECF No. 3.) The Court dismissed the action without prejudice and with leave to amend 

because Petitioner had again failed to allege exhaustion of his state judicial remedies. 

Petitioner was given until February 21, 2018 to file a Second Amended Petition that 

/ / /

Case 3:17-cv-01925-LAB-RBB Document 7 Filed 03/06/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 3
2

17cv1925 LAB (RBB)

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

alleged exhaustion of his state judicial remedies. On February 23, 2018, Petitioner filed a 

Second Amended Petition. (ECF No. 5.)

FAILURE TO ALLEGE EXHAUSTION OF STATE JUDICIAL REMEDIES

Petitioner has again failed to allege exhaustion. Before Petitioner can bring his 

claims in this Court, he must first present them to the California Supreme Court and 

provide that 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 v. Greer, 481 U.S. 

129, 133-34 (1987). This can be accomplished via direct appeal of a conviction or via a 

habeas corpus petition filed in the state supreme court. 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.” Duncan v. Henry, 513 U.S. 364, 365-66 (1995).

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 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 3:17-cv-01925-LAB-RBB Document 7 Filed 03/06/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 3
3

17cv1925 LAB (RBB)

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) (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

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

with leave to amend because Petitioner has failed to allege exhaustion of his state judicial 

remedies. To have this case reopened, Petitioner must, no later May 7, 2018, file a 

Third Amended Petition that cures the pleading deficiencies set forth above. Petitioner is 

advised that if he does not allege exhaustion in his Third Amended Petition, the Court 

will dismiss the action without prejudice and without further leave to amend. The Clerk 

of Court is directed to mail Petitioner a blank Third Amended Petition form together 

with a copy of this Order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 6, 2018

 Hon. Larry Alan Burns

 United States District Judge

Case 3:17-cv-01925-LAB-RBB Document 7 Filed 03/06/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 3