Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-02835/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-02835-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 540
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Mandamus and Other
Cause of Action: 28:2241fd Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (federal)

---

1

18cv2835 CAB (MDD)

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

MICHAEL DAVID HEMINGWAY,

Petitioner,

v.

UNKNOWN,

Respondent.

Case No.: 18cv2835 CAB (MDD)

ORDER: (1) CONSTRUING 

PETITION AS ONE FILED 

PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. § 2254; and 

(2) DISMISSING CASE WITHOUT 

PREJUDICE AND WITH LEAVE TO 

AMEND

On December 17, 2018 Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed a 

Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241.

FAILURE TO SATISFY FILING FEE REQUIREMENT

Petitioner has not paid the $5.00 filing fee and has not moved 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.

BASIS FOR PETITION

Although Petitioner filed this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241, he is a state 

prisoner attacking the validity of a state court conviction and sentence imposed by the 

state of California. Therefore, Petitioner may not proceed under § 2241, but may only 

proceed with a habeas action in federal court under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. White v. Lambert, 

370 F.3d 1002, 1006-07 (9th Cir. 2004) (holding that section 2254 is the proper 

Case 3:18-cv-02835-CAB-MDD Document 2 Filed 12/27/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 5
2

18cv2835 CAB (MDD)

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

jurisdictional basis for a habeas petition brought by an individual “in custody pursuant to 

a state court judgment”). Section 2254 is properly understood as “in effect 

implement[ing] the general grant of habeas corpus authority found in § 2241 as long as 

the person is in custody pursuant to the judgment of a state court, and not in state custody 

for some other reason, such as pre-conviction custody, custody awaiting extradition, or 

other forms of custody that are possible without a conviction.” [citations omitted.] Id. at 

1006 (quoting Walker v. O’Brien, 216 F.3d 626, 633 (7th Cir. 2000) (emphasis in 

original). Accordingly, the Court CONSTRUES the Petition as one filed pursuant to 28 

U.S.C. § 2254.

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.

28 U.S.C. § 2254(a) (emphasis added). See Hernandez v. Ylst, 930 F.2d 714, 719 (9th 

Cir. 1991). 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 claims that “Prop 57 grants me parole consideration,” and “As of 

9/2/18 section 3491 subdivision (b)(1) are null and void.” (Pet., ECF No. 1 at 4-5.) 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.

Case 3:18-cv-02835-CAB-MDD Document 2 Filed 12/27/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 5
3

18cv2835 CAB (MDD)

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

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 

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;

/ / /

Case 3:18-cv-02835-CAB-MDD Document 2 Filed 12/27/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 5
4

18cv2835 CAB (MDD)

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

(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] 

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).

FAILURE TO NAME PROPER RESPONDENT

Moreover, 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).

Case 3:18-cv-02835-CAB-MDD Document 2 Filed 12/27/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 5
5

18cv2835 CAB (MDD)

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

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).

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the Court CONSTRUES the Petition as one filed 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 and DISMISSES the case without prejudice and with leave 

to amend. If Petitioner wishes to proceed with this action he must, no later than 

February 26, 2019: (1) pay the $5.00 filing fee or submit adequate proof he cannot pay 

the fee, and (2) file a First Amended Petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 that cures the 

pleading deficiencies outlined in this Order. The Clerk of Court will 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: December 27, 2018

Case 3:18-cv-02835-CAB-MDD Document 2 Filed 12/27/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 5 of 5