Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_19-cv-01578/USCOURTS-casd-3_19-cv-01578-0/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

19cv1578 CAB (MDD)

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

CHRISTOPHER D. WARSAW,

Petitioner,

v.

PATRICK COVELLO, Warden,

Respondent.

Case No.: 19cv1578 CAB (MDD)

ORDER: (1) DENYING IN FORMA 

PAUPERIS APPLICATION AS 

MOOT AND 

(2) DISMISSING CASE WITHOUT 

PREJUDICE AND WITH LEAVE TO 

AMEND

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

Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254.

REQUEST TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS

On August 23, 2019, Petitioner filed a request to proceed in forma pauperis. (ECF 

No. 2.) Petitioner then submitted the $5.00 filing fee on September 4, 2019. (ECF No. 

3.) Because Petitioner has paid the filing fee, the Court DENIES Petitioner’s application 

to proceed in forma pauperis as moot.

FAILURE TO STATE A COGNIZABLE CLAIM ON FEDERAL HABEAS

The Petition must be dismissed because, in accordance with Rule 4 of the rules 

governing § 2254 cases, Petitioner has failed to allege that his state court conviction or 

sentence violates the Constitution of the United States.

Case 3:19-cv-01578-CAB-MDD Document 4 Filed 09/06/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 5
2

19cv1578 CAB (MDD)

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

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.

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 claims that he received a Rule Violation Report for alleged 

misconduct in prison and argues that prison officials failed to adhere to proper procedures 

during the subsequent Rule Violations Report Hearing. (See Pet. at 1-2, ECF No. 1.) He 

further argues that the prison Appeals Coordinator is retaliating against him and violating

his First Amendment rights by failing to process his inmate grievance appeal. (Id.) In no 

way, however, does Petitioner claim he is “in custody in violation of the Constitution or 

laws or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (emphasis added).

1

 

1 The Court notes that challenges to the fact or duration of confinement are brought by 

petition for a writ of habeas corpus, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254; challenges to 

conditions of confinement are brought pursuant to the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. 

§ 1983. See Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 488-50 (1973). When a state prisoner is 

challenging the very fact or duration of his physical imprisonment, and the relief he seeks 

is a determination that he is entitled to immediate release or a speedier release from that 

imprisonment, his sole federal remedy is a writ of habeas corpus. Id. at 500. On the 

other hand, a § 1983 action is a proper remedy for a state prisoner who is making a 

constitutional challenge to the conditions of his prison life, but not to the fact or length of

Case 3:19-cv-01578-CAB-MDD Document 4 Filed 09/06/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 5
3

19cv1578 CAB (MDD)

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

Further, the Court notes that Petitioner cannot simply amend his Petition to state a 

federal habeas claim and then refile the amended petition in this case. He must exhaust 

state judicial remedies before bringing his claims via federal habeas. State prisoners who 

wish to challenge their state court conviction 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. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b), (c); Granberry, 481 U.S. at 133-34. 

Moreover, to properly exhaust state court judicial 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 the due process 

of law guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment, he must say so, not only in federal 

court, but in state court.” Id. (emphasis added).

Additionally, the Court cautions Petitioner that under the Antiterrorism and 

Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, 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 

 

his custody. Id. at 499; McIntosh v. United States Parole Comm’n, 115 F.3d 809, 811-12 

(10th Cir. 1997). 

Case 3:19-cv-01578-CAB-MDD Document 4 Filed 09/06/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 5
4

19cv1578 CAB (MDD)

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

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. § 2244(d)(1)(A)-(D) (West Supp. 2002).

The Court also notes that 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).

CONCLUSION

Accordingly, the Court DENIES the request to proceed in forma pauperis as moot

and DISMISSES the case without prejudice and with leave to amend. To have the case 

reopened, Petitioner must, no later than November 12, 2019, file a First Amended 

Petition that cures the pleading deficiency outlined above. For Petitioner’s convenience, 

/ / / / / 

/ / / / / 

/ / / / / 

/ / / / / 

/ / / / / 

/ / / / / 

Case 3:19-cv-01578-CAB-MDD Document 4 Filed 09/06/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 5
5

19cv1578 CAB (MDD)

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 Clerk of Court shall attach to this Order a form in forma pauperis application and a 

blank habeas petition form. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 6, 2019

Case 3:19-cv-01578-CAB-MDD Document 4 Filed 09/06/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 5 of 5