Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-02866/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-02866-0/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

16cv2866 AJB (AGS)

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

MIGUEL U. CAMUNAS,

Petitioner,

v.

PEOPLE, Warden,

Respondent.

Case No.: 16cv2866 AJB (AGS)

ORDER: 

(1) GRANTING MOTION TO 

PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS; 

and 

(2) DISMISSING CASE WITHOUT 

PREJUDICE AND WITH LEAVE TO 

AMEND

Petitioner, proceeding pro se, has submitted a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, together with a request to proceed in forma pauperis. 

MOTION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS

Petitioner cannot afford the $5.00 filing fee. Thus, the Court GRANTS 

Petitioner’s application to proceed in forma pauperis, and allows Petitioner to prosecute 

the above-referenced action without being required to prepay fees or costs and without 

being required to post security. The Clerk of the Court shall file the Petition for Writ of 

Habeas Corpus without prepayment of the filing fee.

FAILURE TO ALLEGE EXHAUSTION OF STATE JUDICIAL REMEDIES

Upon review of the Petition, it is not clear Petitioner has exhausted his state 

judicial remedies. Habeas petitioners who wish to challenge either their state court 

Case 3:16-cv-02866-AJB-AGS Document 3 Filed 01/04/17 Page 1 of 5
2

16cv2866 AJB (AGS)

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

conviction or the length of their confinement in state prison, must first exhaust state 

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).

It is not clear from the Petition that Petitioner as raised his claims in the California 

Supreme Court. If Petitioner has raised his claims in the California Supreme Court he 

must so specify. 

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

Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA) 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

/ / /

Case 3:16-cv-02866-AJB-AGS Document 3 Filed 01/04/17 Page 2 of 5
3

16cv2866 AJB (AGS)

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.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).

Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases provides for summary dismissal 

of a habeas petition “[i]f it plainly appears from the face of the petition and any exhibits 

annexed to it that the petitioner is not entitled to relief in the district court . . .” Rule 4, 28 

U.S.C. foll. § 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.

FAILURE TO NAME PROPER RESPONDENT

Further 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. OrtizSandoval 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.

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 

Case 3:16-cv-02866-AJB-AGS Document 3 Filed 01/04/17 Page 3 of 5
4

16cv2866 AJB (AGS)

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

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.

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). If a “petitioner is on probation or parole, he may 

name his probation or parole officer ‘and the official in charge of the parole or probation 

agency, or the state correctional agency, as appropriate.’” Id. (quoting Rule 2, 28 U.S.C. 

foll. § 2254 advisory committee’s note). In some cases, a petitioner may name the state 

attorney general. Id.

Here, Petitioner has incorrectly named “People,” as Respondent. In order for this 

Court to entertain a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, Petitioner must name the person 

who will produce “the body” if directed to do so by the Court. Because Petitioner is on 

probation, the proper respondents are his probation officer and the official in charge of 

the probation agency. See Ortiz-Sandoval, 81 F.3d at 894. 

CONCLUSION

Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Petitioner’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis 

and DISMISSES the Petition without prejudice and with leave to amend. To have this 

case reopened, Petitioner must file a First Amended Petition no later than March 7, 

/ / /

/ / /

/ / / 

/ / /

/ / /

Case 3:16-cv-02866-AJB-AGS Document 3 Filed 01/04/17 Page 4 of 5
5

16cv2866 AJB (AGS)

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

2017. The Clerk of Court is directed to mail Petitioner a blank First Amended Petition 

form together with a copy of this Order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 4, 2017

Case 3:16-cv-02866-AJB-AGS Document 3 Filed 01/04/17 Page 5 of 5