Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-01415/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-01415-0/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

-1- 11cv1415

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JEKE D. WEST, Civil No. 11cv1415-IEG (WVG)

Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR

EXTENSION OF TIME AND DENYING

MOTION FOR STAY AND

ABEYANCE; and

NOTICE REGARDING POSSIBLE

DISMISSAL FOR FAILURE TO

SATISFY FILING FEE REQUIREMENT

AND FAILURE TO USE COURTAPPROVED PETITION FORM

v.

WARDEN OF DELANO PRISON,

Respondent.

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

Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, accompanied by a Motion for Extension of Time and a

Motion for Stay and Abeyance. Petitioner has not paid the $5.00 filing fee and has not filed an

application to proceed in forma pauperis. Petitioner has also failed to use a court-approved

habeas petition form. For the following reasons, the Court denies the Motion for Extension of

Time and the Motion Stay and Abeyance, and notifies Petitioner that failure to satisfy the filing

fee requirement and failure to submit an amended petition on a court-approved form will result

in dismissal of this action.

FAILURE TO SATISFY FILING FEE REQUIREMENT

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. Petitioner is advised that

Case 3:11-cv-01415-IEG-WVG Document 3 Filed 06/30/11 Page 1 of 5
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

 The Court cautions Petitioner that under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1

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 2006).

Statutory tolling of the statute of limitations is available 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.”);

Bonner v. Carey, 425 F.3d 1145, 1149 (9th Cir. 2006) (holding that a state application for postconviction relief which is ultimately dismissed as untimely was neither “properly filed” nor “pending”

while it was under consideration by the state court, and therefore does not toll the statute of limitations),

as amended 439 F.3d 993. Equitable tolling is also available, but only if Petitioner can show that

“extraordinary circumstances” were a proximate cause of his inability to file his federal petition on time,

and that he was diligent. Pace v. DiGuglielmo, 544 U.S. 408, 418 (2005); Spitsyn v. Moore, 345 F.3d

796, 799 (9th Cir. 2003). Absent some other basis for tolling, the statute of limitations continues to run

while a federal habeas petition is pending. Duncan v. Walker, 533 U.S. 167, 181-82 (2001).

-2- 11cv1415

in order to avoid dismissal of his case, he must either pay the $5.00 filing fee or submit an

application to proceed in forma pauperis no later than September 12, 2011. If Petitioner does

not pay the $5.00 filing fee or submit an application to proceed in forma pauperis by that date,

this case will be dismissed without prejudice, and Petitioner will have to begin again by filing

a new petition which may be barred by the statute of limitations.1

FAILURE TO USE PROPER FORM

Additionally, a Petition for a 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(d), 28 U.S.C. foll. § 2254. In order to comply with the Local Rules, the Petition must

Case 3:11-cv-01415-IEG-WVG Document 3 Filed 06/30/11 Page 2 of 5
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

 The California Supreme Court denied Petitioner’s petition for review on June 30, 2010. 2 See

http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov (last visited June 30, 2011). Assuming the one-year statute of limitations

begins to run at the conclusion of direct review under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1)(A), that date is calculated

as 90 days from the date the California Supreme Court denies review (if Petitioner did not seek certiorari

in the United States Supreme Court), or on the day the United States Supreme Court denies certiorari

(if Petitioner did seek certiorari in that Court). Bowen v. Roe, 188 F.3d 1157, 1159 (9th Cir. 2002).

Thus, although the Court is making no determination regarding the statute of limitations at this time,

assuming no tolling is applicable here (see footnote 1 supra), and there being no indication that

Petitioner sought certiorari in the United States Supreme Court, then Petitioner appears to have

approximately 3 months left before the limitations period expires.

-3- 11cv1415

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

the Court. Id.; S. D.CAL.CIVLR HC.2(b). Presently, Petitioner has not submitted his application

for writ of habeas corpus on a court-approved form. Petitioner is advised that in order to avoid

dismissal of his case, he must submit a First Amended Petition on a court-approved form no

later than September 12, 2011.

MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME

Petitioner requests an extension of time to file his federal habeas petition, indicating that

he is “out to court in San Diego County on a child custody hearing and is without legal property,

(i.e.) trial transcripts to support claims.” (Mot. at 1.) Petitioner appears to be concerned that

because the California Supreme Court denied his petition for review almost exactly one year ago,

the one-year statute of limitations applicable to habeas petitions filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§ 2254 will expire before he is returned to the prison where his legal materials are located, which

he apparently needs in order to file a complete federal habeas petition. Although the Court

makes no determination with respect to the statute of limitations at this time (such a

determination will occur at a later stage of the proceedings if necessary), it appears from the

information presently before the Court that the one-year statute of limitations in this case is not

set to expire for approximately another three months. 

2

Furthermore, if Petitioner has additional claims he wishes to exhaust in state court, as his

filing of a Motion for Stay and Abeyance would suggest, the statute of limitations might well

be tolled during his state court post-conviction collateral proceedings. (See footnote 1, supra.)

Thus, Petitioner has not at this time demonstrated a need for an extension of time. In any case,

this Court does not have the authority to extend the statute of limitations, which is governed by

Case 3:11-cv-01415-IEG-WVG Document 3 Filed 06/30/11 Page 3 of 5
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- 11cv1415

the triggering events and tolling provisions listed in footnote 1 above. Accordingly, Petitioner’s

Motion for Extension of Time is DENIED.

MOTION FOR STAY AND ABEYANCE

Petitioner has also filed a Motion for Stay and Abeyance. In Rhines v. Weber the

Supreme Court held that District Courts have limited discretion to hold in abeyance a mixed

habeas petition, that is, one containing both exhausted and unexhausted claims, in order to

permit a petitioner to return to state court to exhaust additional claims while the federal

proceedings are stayed. Rhines, 125 S.Ct. at 1534-35. The Rhines Court held that “a stay and

abeyance ‘should be available only in limited circumstances,’ and is appropriate only when the

district court determines that there was ‘good cause’ for the failure to exhaust.” Jackson v. Roe,

425 F.3d 654, 661 (9th Cir. 2005) (quoting Rhines, 125 S.Ct. at 1535). 

Petitioner has not identified any unexhausted claims he wishes to return to state court to

exhaust while the Petition is held in abeyance, and has not alleged good cause for his failure to

exhaust any potentially unexhausted claims. In fact, Petitioner has not indicated that he has

exhausted his state court remedies with respect to the one claim he has presented in his Petition,

perhaps due to his failure to use a court-approved form. According, the Motion for Stay and

Abeyance is DENIED without prejudice to Petitioner to renew his Motion, if he wishes, after

he has filed his First Amended Petition.

The Court cautions Petitioner that 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

Case 3:11-cv-01415-IEG-WVG Document 3 Filed 06/30/11 Page 4 of 5
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

-5- 11cv1415

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).

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Petitioner’s Motion for Extension of time is DENIED. Petitioner’s Motion for Stay and

Abeyance is DENIED without prejudice to its renewal after Petitioner files a First Amended

Petition. Petitioner is NOTIFIED that in order to avoid dismissal of this action he must satisfy

the filing fee requirement and file a First Amended Petition on a court-approved form on or

before September 12, 2011. The Clerk of Court shall send Petitioner a blank Southern District

of California amended petition form and a blank Southern District of California In Forma

Pauperis application along with a copy of this Order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: June 30, 2011

IRMA E. GONZALEZ, Chief Judge

United States District Court

Case 3:11-cv-01415-IEG-WVG Document 3 Filed 06/30/11 Page 5 of 5