Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_13-cv-01162/USCOURTS-casd-3_13-cv-01162-0/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 

FILED 

MAY 2 0 2013 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

STEVE KASSAB, Civil 13-1162 WQH (RBB) No. 

Petitioner, 

ORDER DISMISSING CASE 

v. WITHOUT PREJUDICE AND 

WITH LEAVE TO AMEND UNKNOWN, 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. foIl. § 

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 ofhim as the respondent. Ortiz-Sandoval v. Gomez, 81 F.3d 891,894 (9th Cir. 

1996) (citing Rule 2(a), 28 U.S.C. foIl. § 2254). Federal courts lack personal jurisdiction 

-1- 13cvl162 

Case 3:13-cv-01162-WQH-RBB Document 5 Filed 05/20/13 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 

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 ofthe 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. foIl. § 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. foIl. § 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 ofCorrections. Brittingham v. United States, 982 F.2d 378,379 

(9th Cir. 1992) (per curiam). IfPetitioner is on probation or parole, Petitioner must name 

the person who will produce "the body" if directed to do so by the Court, i.e., his parole 

officer and the official in charge of the parole agency, or his probation officer and the 

official in charge of the probation agency. See Ortiz-Sandoval, 81 F.3d at 894. 

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 

-2- I3cvl162 

Case 3:13-cv-01162-WQH-RBB Document 5 Filed 05/20/13 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 

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). 

Petitioner specifically indicates he did not seek review in the California Supreme 

Court. (See Pet. at 6-9, ECF No.1.) Petitioner states that he was unable to do so because 

he was convicted of misdemeanor offenses, and, per California procedure, appealed to 

the Appellate Division ofthe Superior Court. After his appeal was denied by that court, 

he sought to have the case transferred to the California Court ofAppeal, but that request 

was also denied. Petitioner states he could not file anything in the California Supreme 

Court because the superior court and the appellate court denied his requests for 

certification and transfer. (Id. at 5.) The Ninth Circuit has held, however, that a 

petitioner in such circumstances must still present his claims to the California Supreme 

Court via a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus in order to satisfy the exhaustion 

requirement. See Larch v. Simons, 53 F .3d 1068, 1071-72 (9th Cir. 1995) (holding that 

"before turning to the federal courts for habeas review, misdemeanants must present their 

constitutional claims to the California Supreme Court by means of state habeas 

petitions"). 

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

Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDP A) a one-year period of limitation shall apply to a 

/ / / 

-3- 13cvl162 

Case 3:13-cv-01162-WQH-RBB Document 5 Filed 05/20/13 Page 3 of 5
5 

10 

15 

20 

25 

2 

3 

4 

6 

7 

8 

9 

11 

12 

13 

14 

16 

17 

18 

19 

21 

22 

23 

24 

26 

27 

28 

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 

c!pplication created by State action in violation oC 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 SU2reme Court, ifthe 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 ofthe claim 

or claims 2resented could have been discovered through the 

exercise 01 due diligence. 

28 U.S.C.A. § 2244(d)(l)(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 ofa habeas petition "[i]fit plainly appears from the face ofthe petition and any 

exhibits annexed to it that the petitioner is not entitled to reliefin the district court ..." 

Rule 4, 28 U.S.C. foIl. § 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. 

/ / / 

-4- 13cv1162 

Case 3:13-cv-01162-WQH-RBB Document 5 Filed 05/20/13 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 

IN CUSTODY REQUIREMENT 

"Subject matter jurisdiction under the federal habeas corpus statute, 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2254(a), is limited to those persons 'in custody pursuant to the judgment of a State. '" 

Brockv. Weston, 31 F.3d 887, 889 (9th Cir. 1994); see also 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c)(3). It 

is a jurisdictional requirement that, at the time a habeas petition is filed, "the habeas 

petitioner be 'in custody' under the conviction or sentence under attack." Maleng v. 

Cook, 490 U.S. 488, 490-91 (1989) (citing 28 U.S.C. §§ 2241(c)(3) & 2254(a)); see 

Carafas v. LaVallee, 391 U.S. 234, 238 (1968)). 

Upon review of the documents filed in this case, it is not clear that Petitioner is 

currently in the custody ofthe State ofCalifornia, nor was he when he filed the Petition 

because it lists Petitioner's address as "4101 Market Street, San Diego, CA 92102." In 

addition, Petitioner states his start date ofhis sentence is May 21,2013. (See Pet. at 1-2, 

ECF No. 1.) 

CONCLUSION 

For the foregoing reasons, the Court DISMISSES the Petition without prejudice 

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

July 23. 2013: (1) pay the $5.00 filing fee OR submit adequate proof ofhis inability to 

pay the fee; AND (2) file a First Amended Petition that cures the pleading deficiencies 

outlined in this Order. The Clerk ofCourt is directed to mailPetitioner a blank Motion 

to Proceed In Forma Pauperis Application and a blank First AmendedPetition form 

to Petitioner together with a copy ofthis Order. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: . ~Gd { 

J;'.Everyone\_EFILE-PROSF.\WQIDlkvI162_ diDniu.wpd. 5171J -5- 13cvl162 

Case 3:13-cv-01162-WQH-RBB Document 5 Filed 05/20/13 Page 5 of 5