Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-00751/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-00751-0/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 

18cv0751 H (KSC)

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

BRICE TABBUTT,

Petitioner,

v. 

SALLY BRUNER, et al., 

Respondents.

Case No.: 18cv0751 H (KSC)

ORDER: (1) DENYING MOTION TO 

PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS; 

and (2) DISMISSING CASE 

WITHOUT PREJUDICE AND WITH 

LEAVE TO AMEND

Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas 

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

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a).

A. In Custody Requirement

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

the custody of the State of California, nor was he when he filed the Petition because it lists 

Petitioner’s address as “3419 Utah St., San Diego, CA 92104.” Furthermore, Petitioner 

does not allege he was on parole or otherwise in constructive custody.

“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.’” 

Brock v. 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 

Case 3:18-cv-00751-H-KSC Document 3 Filed 04/23/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 6
2 

18cv0751 H (KSC)

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

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)). 

Rule 4 of the Rules Governing § 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 is plain from the Petition that Petitioner is not presently entitled 

to federal habeas relief because he was not in the custody of the State of California when 

he filed his § 2254 Petition in this Court. 

B. Motion to Proceed in Forma Pauperis

If, however, Petitioner is in actual or constructive custody, the request to proceed in 

forma pauperis must be DENIED because Petitioner has not provided the Court with 

sufficient information to determine Petitioner’s financial status. A request to proceed in 

forma pauperis made by a state prisoner must include a certificate from the warden or other 

appropriate officer showing the amount of money or securities Petitioner has on account in 

the institution. Rule 3(a)(2), 28 U.S.C. foll. § 2254; Local Rule 3.2. Petitioner has failed 

to provide the Court with the required Prison Certificate. 

C. 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 

/ / /

/ / /

Case 3:18-cv-00751-H-KSC Document 3 Filed 04/23/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 6
3 

18cv0751 H (KSC)

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

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); Mannhalt v. Reed, 847 F.2d 576, 579 (9th Cir. 1988); Kealohapauole v. Shimoda, 

800 F.2d 1463, 1464-65 (9th Cir. 1986). 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 makes various claims that are difficult to decipher. He asks to 

“repair, transfer, repeal, replace all entitlements on behalf of 45th Trump’s Ryan’s Browns 

Tea Party, A-Teams, D.O.D. (U.S. master beneficiary and handyman) F.B.I. for laws and 

equity!” (Pet. at 4.) He also asks “to protect all legal citizen C.E.Os and to please grant 

me relief. A job/work with mental gifted for this transition, wills, trusts, estates, shared to 

make ours #1 economy to by Ambassador.” (Id. at 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.

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. Habeas petitioners 

who wish to challenge either their state court conviction or the length of their confinement 

in state prison, must first exhaust state judicial remedies by giving a state the opportunity 

to correct violations of the federal constitution. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b), (c); Baldwin v. Reese, 

541 U.S. 27, 29 (2004). “To provide the State with the necessary ‘opportunity,’ the 

prisoner must ‘fairly present’ his claim in each appropriate state court (including a state 

supreme court with powers of discretionary review), thereby alerting that court to the 

federal nature of the claim.” Baldwin, 541 U.S. at 29 (citing Duncan v. Henry, 513 U.S. 

364, 365 (1995) (per curium). 

 

Case 3:18-cv-00751-H-KSC Document 3 Filed 04/23/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 6
4 

18cv0751 H (KSC)

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 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

(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); 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).

D. Failure to Name a Proper Respondent

Review of the also 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. Rumsfeld v. Padilla, 542 U.S. 426, 439 (2004); Ortiz-Sandoval 

v. Gomez, 81 F.3d 891, 894 (9th Cir. 1996) (citing Rule 2(a), 28 U.S.C. foll. 

Case 3:18-cv-00751-H-KSC Document 3 Filed 04/23/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 6
5 

18cv0751 H (KSC)

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

§ 2254). Federal courts lack personal jurisdiction when a habeas petition fails to name a 

proper respondent. See Ortiz-Sandoval, 81 F.3d at 894.

“In challenges to present physical confinement, . . . the immediate custodian . . . is 

the proper respondent.” Padilla, 542 U.S. at 439. 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. The warden is the typical respondent. 

However, “the rules following section 2254 do not specify the warden.” Ortiz-Sandoval, 

81 F.3d at 894. “[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). “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 named “Sally Bruner and A.J. Tabbutt” as Respondents. If 

Petitioner is in actual or constructive custody, Petitioner must name either the warden in 

charge of the state correctional facility in which Petitioner is presently confined, his parole 

officer, or the Director of the California Department of Corrections. Brittingham v. United 

States, 982 F.2d 378, 379 (9th Cir. 1992) (per curiam); Ortiz-Sandoval, 81 F.3d at 894. If 

he is on probation, he must name the individual in charge of the probation authority which 

administers his probation. 

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the Court DENIES Petitioner’s motion to proceed in 

forma pauperis and DISMISSES the Petition without prejudice and with leave to amend 

due to Petitioner’s failure to name a proper respondent. To have this case reopened, 

Petitioner must, no later than June 25, 2018: (1) pay the $5.00 filing fee or submit adequate 

proof of his inability to pay the fee; and (2) file a First Amended Petition that cures the 

pleading deficiencies outlined in this Order. The Clerk of Court will mail Petitioner a 

Case 3:18-cv-00751-H-KSC Document 3 Filed 04/23/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 5 of 6
6 

18cv0751 H (KSC)

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

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: April 23, 2018 _________________________________

 Marilyn L. Huff

 United States District Court 

Case 3:18-cv-00751-H-KSC Document 3 Filed 04/23/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 6 of 6