Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_13-cv-00648/USCOURTS-casd-3_13-cv-00648-0/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

FATIMA BINETA LO, Civil No. 13-0648 LAB (BLM)

Petitioner,

ORDER:

(1) DENYING IN FORMA PAUPERIS

APPLICATION AND 

(2) DISMISSING CASE WITHOUT

PREJUDICE

v.

NEW JERSEY IMMIGRATION COURT,

Respondent.

Petitioner, a detainee in the custody of the Department of Homeland Security, Bureau of

Immigration and Customs Enforcement, proceeding pro se, filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas

Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, along with a Motion for Leave to Proceed In Forma

Pauperis. [ECF Nos. 1,2.]

FAILURE TO STATE COGNIZABLE 28 U.S. C. § 2254 CLAIM

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 is in custody in violation of the

Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.

I:\Everyone\_EFILE-PROSE\LAB\13cv0648 dismiss.wpd, 41113 -1-

Case 3:13-cv-00648-LAB-BLM Document 3 Filed 04/11/13 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

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).

Although Petitioner filed this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §2254, Petitioner does not

challenge a state court conviction within her Petition. Section 2254 is properly understood as

“in effect implement[ing] the general grant of habeas corpus authority found in § 2241 as long

as the person is in custody pursuant to the judgment of a state court, and not in state custody for

some other reason, such as pre-conviction custody, custody awaiting extradition, or other forms

of custody that are possible without a conviction.” [citations omitted.] Id. at 1006 (quoting

Walker v. O’Brien, 216 F.3d 626, 633 (7th Cir. 2000) (emphasis in original). “By contrast, the

general grant of habeas authority in § 2241 is available for challenges by a state prisoner who

is not in custody pursuant to a state court judgment-for example, a defendant in pre-trial

detention or awaiting extradition. In these situations, not covered by the limitations in § 2254,

the general grant of habeas authority provided by the Constitution and § 2241 will provide

jurisdiction for state prisoners' habeas claims.” Id. at 1006 (citing McNeely v. Blanas, 336 F.3d

822 (9th Cir.2003) (allowing a pre-trial detainee to proceed under § 2241).

Based on the current Petition, it appears the only potential habeas relief available to Petitioner

would be the general habeas relief set forth in 28 U.S.C. §2241.1

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS

To the extent Petitioner is raising a challenge under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, 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

Petitioner currently has a petition pending in this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §2241 in case 1

number 13cv0647 JLS (BGS).

I:\Everyone\_EFILE-PROSE\LAB\13cv0648 dismiss.wpd, 41113 -2-

Case 3:13-cv-00648-LAB-BLM Document 3 Filed 04/11/13 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

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. 

FAILURE TO NAME PROPER RESPONDENT

Review of the 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. Ortiz-Sandoval v. Gomez, 81 F.3d 891, 894 (9th Cir. 1996) (citing Rule 2(a), 28

U.S.C. foll. § 2254). 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).

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.

//

//

Here, Petitioner has incorrectly named “New Jersey Immigration Court,” as Respondent.

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

I:\Everyone\_EFILE-PROSE\LAB\13cv0648 dismiss.wpd, 41113 -3-

Case 3:13-cv-00648-LAB-BLM Document 3 Filed 04/11/13 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

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

Director of the California Department of Corrections. Brittingham v. United States, 982 F.2d

378, 379 (9th Cir. 1992) (per curiam). 

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

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 she raised her claims in the California

Supreme Court. In fact, she specifically indicates she did not seek review in the California

Supreme Court. (See Pet. at 6-9.) If Petitioner has raised her claims in the California Supreme

Court she 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

I:\Everyone\_EFILE-PROSE\LAB\13cv0648 dismiss.wpd, 41113 -4-

Case 3:13-cv-00648-LAB-BLM Document 3 Filed 04/11/13 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

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 byState 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

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 she has not alleged exhaustion of state court remedies.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

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

DISMISSES the case without prejudice for Petitioner’s failure to name state a cognizable

habeas claim, name a proper respondent, and allege exhaustion of state court remedies. If

I:\Everyone\_EFILE-PROSE\LAB\13cv0648 dismiss.wpd, 41113 -5-

Case 3:13-cv-00648-LAB-BLM Document 3 Filed 04/11/13 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

Petitioner wishes to proceed with this case under Section 2254, Petitioner must, no later than

June 11, 2013, provide the Court with: (1) a copy of this Order together with the $5.00 filing

fee; or (2) a copy of this Order together with adequate proof that Petitioner cannot pay the $5.00

filing fee AND a First Amended Petition that remedies the pleading deficiencies noted above. 

The Clerk of Court is directed to send Petitioner a blank Application to Proceed In Forma

Pauperis, and a blank section 2254 First Amended Petition.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: April 11, 2013

HONORABLE LARRY ALAN BURNS

United States District Judge

I:\Everyone\_EFILE-PROSE\LAB\13cv0648 dismiss.wpd, 41113 -6-

Case 3:13-cv-00648-LAB-BLM Document 3 Filed 04/11/13 Page 6 of 6