Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_10-cv-01952/USCOURTS-casd-3_10-cv-01952-2/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

-1-

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DERRYL T. FOSTER, Civil No. 10-1952 BTM (BLM)

Petitioner,

ORDER DISMISSING CASE 

v. WITHOUT PREJUDICE

K. HARRINGTON, Warden

Respondent.

On September 15, 2010, Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed a document

titled “Stay in Abeyance Motion to File” which the Court construed as a Petition for Writ of

Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, along with a Motion for Stay and Abeyance. By

Order dated October 1, 2010, the Court denied Petitioner’s Motion for Stay and Abeyance noting

that Petitioner had not yet filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus with this Court. (See Order

dated October 1, 2010, in Case No. 10cv1952 BTM (BLM) [doc. no. 2].) On March 16, 2011,

Petitioner filed a document titled “Addendum Under Due Process Ineffective Assistance of

Counsel Prejudicial Claim” which the Court construed as a First Amended Petition. [Doc. No.

8.] For the reasons set forth below, the Court DISMISSES the First Amended Petition without

prejudice. 

//

//

//

Case 3:10-cv-01952-BTM-BLM Document 9 Filed 04/04/11 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

-2-

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. Because this Court cannot proceed until Petitioner has either paid the $5.00 filing fee

or qualified to proceed in forma pauperis, the Court DISMISSES the case without prejudice.

See Rule 3(a), 28 U.S.C. foll. § 2254. 

VENUE

A petition for writ of habeas corpus may be filed in the United States District Court of

either the judicial district in which the petitioner is presently confined or the judicial district in

which he was convicted and sentenced. See 28 U.S.C. § 2241(d); Braden v. 30th Judicial

Circuit Court, 410 U.S. 484, 497 (1973). Petitioner is presently confined at Kern Valley State

Prison, located in Kern County, which is within the jurisdictional boundaries of the United States

District Court for the Eastern District of California. See 28 U.S.C. § 84(c)(1). While it appears

that Petitioner’s conviction was in San Diego County, he does not state where he was convicted.

Petitioner must tell the Court where he suffered the conviction which he seeks to challenge in

this matter.

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 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

Case 3:10-cv-01952-BTM-BLM Document 9 Filed 04/04/11 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

-3-

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).

Nowhere on the Petition does Petitioner allege that he raised his claims in the California

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

specify. “The burden of proving that a claim has been exhausted lies with the petitioner.”

Matthews v. Evatt, 105 F.3d 907, 911 (4th Cir. 1997); see Breard v. Pruett, 134 F.3d 615, 619

(4th Cir. 1998); Lambert v. Blackwell, 134 F.3d 506, 513 (3d Cir. 1997); Oyler v. Allenbrand,

23 F.3d 292, 300 (10th Cir. 1994); Rust v. Zent, 17 F.3d 155, 160 (6th Cir. 1994).

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;

(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); 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

Case 3:10-cv-01952-BTM-BLM Document 9 Filed 04/04/11 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

-4-

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 USE PROPER FORM

Additionally, a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus must be submitted in accordance with

the Local Rules of the United States District Court for the Southern District of California. See

Rule 2(c), 28 U.S.C. foll. § 2254. In order to comply with the Local Rules, the petition must be

submitted upon a court-approved form and in accordance with the instructions approved by the

Court. Presently, Petitioner has submitted an application for writ of habeas corpus on a nonapproved form

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

In light of the above, the Court DISMISSES the case without prejudice for Petitioner’s

failure to satisfy the filing fee requirement, demonstrate venue is proper in this Court, allege

exhaustion of state judicial remedies and use a court-approved form. If Petitioner wishes to

proceed with this case, he must submit, no later than May 31, 2011, a copy of this Order with

the $5.00 fee or with adequate proof of his inability to pay the fee AND a Second Amended

Petition which cures the pleading deficiencies noted above. The Clerk of Court shall send a

blank Southern District of California In Forma Pauperis Application to Petitioner and a

Second Amended Petition form along with a copy of this Order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: April 4, 2011

Honorable Barry Ted Moskowitz

United States District Judge

Case 3:10-cv-01952-BTM-BLM Document 9 Filed 04/04/11 Page 4 of 4