Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_12-cv-01776/USCOURTS-casd-3_12-cv-01776-0/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

JOSE L. VALDEZ, Civil No. 12-1776 DMS (BLM)

Petitioner,

ORDER DISMISSING CASE 

WITHOUT PREJUDICE AND WITH

LEAVE TO AMEND

v.

KATAVICH, Warden

Respondent.

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

Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254.

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). It is generally the practice of the district courts in California

to transfer habeas actions challenging a parole eligibility hearing to the district in which the

C:\Users\moanam\AppData\Local\Temp\notesBF8557\12cv1776 dismiss.wpd, 81712 -1-

Case 3:12-cv-01776-DMS-BLM Document 2 Filed 08/17/12 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

hearing was conducted. Any and all records, witnesses and evidence necessary for the resolution

of a petitioner’s contentions are more readily available in that district. See Braden, 410 U.S. at

497, 499 n.15; Laue v. Nelson, 279 F. Supp. 265, 266 (N.D. Cal. 1968). Petitioner is presently

confined at Wasco 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(b). Petitioner does not specify where the Board of Prison Terms hearing

occurred. Thus, it is currently unclear whether this Court has jurisdiction in this matter. 

Petitioner must tell the Court where the Board of Prison Terms hearing occurred 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

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 claim 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

C:\Users\moanam\AppData\Local\Temp\notesBF8557\12cv1776 dismiss.wpd, 81712 -2-

Case 3:12-cv-01776-DMS-BLM Document 2 Filed 08/17/12 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

(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

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.

C:\Users\moanam\AppData\Local\Temp\notesBF8557\12cv1776 dismiss.wpd, 81712 -3-

Case 3:12-cv-01776-DMS-BLM Document 2 Filed 08/17/12 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

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

In light of the above, the Court DISMISSES the Petition without prejudice and with leave

to amend for Petitioner’s failure to satisfy the filing fee requirement, demonstrate venue is

proper in this Court, and allege exhaustion of state judicial remedies. If Petitioner wishes to

proceed with this case, he must submit, no later than October 9, 2012, a copy of this Order

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

Pleading which cures the pleading deficiencies noted above. The Clerk of Court is directed to

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

a blank First Amended Petition along with a copy of this Order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: August 17, 2012

HON. DANA M. SABRAW

United States District Judge

C:\Users\moanam\AppData\Local\Temp\notesBF8557\12cv1776 dismiss.wpd, 81712 -4-

Case 3:12-cv-01776-DMS-BLM Document 2 Filed 08/17/12 Page 4 of 4