Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-02717/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-02717-0/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RAMON DEL RIO, Civil

No. 16cv2717-WQH (JLB)

Petitioner,

ORDER GRANTING

APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN

FORMA PAUPERIS AND

DISMISSING PETITION

WITHOUT PREJUDICE

v.

DANIEL PARAMO, Warden, et al.,

Respondents.

Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has submitted a Petition for a Writ

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

forma pauperis. The Petition is subject to dismissal without prejudice because Petitioner

has failed to allege exhaustion of state court remedies.

MOTION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS

Petitioner has submitted a copy of his inmate trust account statement which shows

that he has no funds on account at the California correctional institution in which he is

presently confined. (ECF No. 2.) The Court will construe this as a motion to proceed in

forma pauperis. Because Petitioner cannot afford the $5.00 filing fee, the Court

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

prosecute the above-referenced action as a poor person without being required to prepay

fees or costs and without being required to post security. 

-1- 16cv2717

Case 3:16-cv-02717-WQH-JLB Document 3 Filed 11/14/16 Page 1 of 4
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

FAILURE TO ALLEGE EXHAUSTION OF STATE COURT REMEDIES

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. 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. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b), (c); Granberry, 481 U.S. at 133-34. 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. 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 [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.” Id. at 366 (emphasis added).

Here, Petitioner has indicated that he has not raised his claims in the California

Supreme Court. (Pet. at 6.) The burden of pleading that a claim has been exhausted lies

with the petitioner. Cartwright v. Cupp, 650 F.2d 1103, 1104 (9th Cir. 1981).

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;

-2- 16cv2717

Case 3:16-cv-02717-WQH-JLB Document 3 Filed 11/14/16 Page 2 of 4
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.A. § 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).

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 attached

exhibits 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.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Based on the foregoing, the Court GRANTS Petitioner’s Motion to proceed in

forma pauperis and DISMISSES this action without prejudice because Petitioner has

failed to allege exhaustion of state judicial remedies. To have this case reopened,

Petitioner must file a First Amended Petition no later than January 9, 2017, that cures

the pleading deficiencies set forth above. Petitioner is advised that if he has not alleged

exhaustion of his state court remedies before January 9, 2017, he will have to start over

by filing a completely new habeas petition in this Court. See In re Turner, 101 F.3d 1323

-3- 16cv2717

Case 3:16-cv-02717-WQH-JLB Document 3 Filed 11/14/16 Page 3 of 4
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

(9th Cir. 1997). The Clerk of Court is directed to send Petitioner a blank Southern

District of California amended petition form along with a copy of this Order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: November 14, 2016

WILLIAM Q. HAYES

United States District Judge

-4- 16cv2717

Case 3:16-cv-02717-WQH-JLB Document 3 Filed 11/14/16 Page 4 of 4