Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_07-cv-00871/USCOURTS-casd-3_07-cv-00871-0/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

K:\COMMON\EVERYONE\_EFILE-PROSE\BEN\07cv0871-Dismiss3.wpd, 867 -1- 07cv0871

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RAYMOND JENKINS, Civil No. 07cv0871 BEN (PCL)

Petitioner,

ORDER DENYING REQUEST TO

PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS AND

DISMISSING CASE 

WITHOUT PREJUDICE

v.

BARSTOW,

Respondent.

On May 11, 2007, Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed a Petition for Writ

of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. On June 14, 2007, the Court dismissed the

Petition because Petitioner failed to satisfy the filing fee requirement, failed to name a proper

respondent and failed to state cognizable claims for relief. The Court informed Petitioner, that

in order to have his case reopened, he would have to (1) either pay the filing fee or provide

adequate proof of his inability to pay and (2) file a First Amended Petition which cured the

pleading deficiencies outlined in its June 14, 2007 Order, no later than July 23, 2007. 

On June 20, 2007, Petitioner filed a request to proceed in forma pauperis and a First

Amended Petition. On June 28, 2007, the Court dismissed the First Amended Petition for the

very same reasons it dismissed the May 11, 2007 Petition. The Court informed Petitioner that

in order to have his case reopened he would have to satisfy the filing fee requirement and file

/ / /

/ / /

Case 3:07-cv-00871-BEN-PCL Document 8 Filed 08/06/07 Page 1 of 6
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

K:\COMMON\EVERYONE\_EFILE-PROSE\BEN\07cv0871-Dismiss3.wpd, 867 -2- 07cv0871

a Second Amended Petition that cured the deficiencies outlined in its June 28, 2007 Order. On

July 30, 2007, Petitioner filed a Second Amended Petition along with a request to proceed in

forma pauperis.

REQUEST TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS

The request to proceed in forma pauperis is 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. 

Accordingly, the Court DENIES the request to proceed in forma pauperis, and

DISMISSES the case without prejudice. .

FAILURE TO NAME A PROPER RESPONDENT

Furthermore, a review of the Second Amended Petition reveals that it suffers from the

same pleading deficiencies as the original Petition and the First Amended Petition. Once again,

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. Ortiz-Sandoval v. Gomez, 81 F.3d

891, 894 (9th Cir. 1996) (citing Rule 2(a), 28 U.S.C. foll. § 2254). “Typically, that person is the

warden of the facility in which the petitioner is incarcerated.” Id. Federal courts lack personal

jurisdiction when a habeas petition fails to name a proper respondent. See id.

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).

/ / /

Case 3:07-cv-00871-BEN-PCL Document 8 Filed 08/06/07 Page 2 of 6
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

K:\COMMON\EVERYONE\_EFILE-PROSE\BEN\07cv0871-Dismiss3.wpd, 867 -3- 07cv0871

Here, Petitioner has named the “Barstow” and “Barstow Police” as Respondents. 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 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. “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. In order

for this Court to entertain the Petition filed in this action, Petitioner must name the warden in

charge of the state correctional facility in which Petitioner is presently confined or the Secretary

of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. Brittingham v. United States,

982 F.2d 378, 379 (9th Cir. 1992) (per curiam).

VENUE

Again, as noted in this Court’s previous Orders, it is also unclear from the face of the

Petitioner whether the Southern District of California is a proper venue for this action. A

petition for writ of habeas corpus may be filed in the United States District Court of 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 here does not indicate the court where he was convicted.

Petitioner is presently confined in Victorville, California, located in San Bernardino County,

which is within the jurisdictional boundaries of the United States District Court for the Central

District of California, Eastern Division. See 28 U.S.C. § 84(c)(1). Petitioner has therefore failed

to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court. See 28 U.S.C. § 2241(d). 

FAILURE TO STATE A COGNIZABLE FEDERAL CLAIM

Finally, Petitioner has again failed to state a cognizable claim on federal habeas review.

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

Case 3:07-cv-00871-BEN-PCL Document 8 Filed 08/06/07 Page 3 of 6
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

K:\COMMON\EVERYONE\_EFILE-PROSE\BEN\07cv0871-Dismiss3.wpd, 867 -4- 07cv0871

behalf of a person in custody pursuant to the judgment of a State

court only on the ground that he 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’s contentions are incomprehensible. He merely states that he wants to

get off parole. (Pet. at 6.) Petitioner does not explicitly claim that he is “in custody in violation

of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254. For example, if

Petitioner is contending that federal Constitutional rights have been violated, he must so state

in the Petition. 

In addition, the Court notes that Petitioner may not be able simply to amend his Petition

to allege violations of his federal constitutional rights, because he is required to allege

exhaustion of state court remedies with respect to any federal claim. A habeas petitioner must

exhaust state judicial remedies before bringing claims via federal habeas. 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. Petitioner must allege, in state court, how one or more of

his 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). The burden of

Case 3:07-cv-00871-BEN-PCL Document 8 Filed 08/06/07 Page 4 of 6
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

K:\COMMON\EVERYONE\_EFILE-PROSE\BEN\07cv0871-Dismiss3.wpd, 867 -5- 07cv0871

pleading that a state court remedies have 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;

(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.”); Bonner v. Carey, 425

F.3d 1145, 1149 (9th Cir.) (holding that a state application for post-conviction 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, cert. denied, 127 S.Ct (2006). 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).

/ / /

Case 3:07-cv-00871-BEN-PCL Document 8 Filed 08/06/07 Page 5 of 6
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

K:\COMMON\EVERYONE\_EFILE-PROSE\BEN\07cv0871-Dismiss3.wpd, 867 -6- 07cv0871

CONCLUSION

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 Petitioner has failed to name a proper respondent and has failed to state a

cognizable federal claim. 

Based on the foregoing, the Court DENIES the request to proceed in forma pauperis and

DISMISSES this action without prejudice. To have this case reopened, Petitioner must satisfy

the filing fee requirement and file a Third Amended Petition no later than August 31, 2007 in

conformance with this Order. Petitioner is advised that if he has not corrected the pleading

deficiencies outlined in this Order by August 31, 2007, he will have to start over by filing a new

Petition in this Court. For Petitioner’s convenience, the Clerk of Court shall attach a blank Third

Amended Petition form to this Order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: August 6, 2007

Hon. Roger T. Benitez

United States District Judge

Case 3:07-cv-00871-BEN-PCL Document 8 Filed 08/06/07 Page 6 of 6