Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_19-cv-02072/USCOURTS-casd-3_19-cv-02072-0/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 

19cv2072-MMA (RBM) 

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 

ISRAEL ONTIVEROS 

Petitioner, 

v. 

JARED D. LOZANO, 

Respondent. 

 Case No.: 19cv2072-MMA (RBM) 

ORDER DISMISSING PETITION 

WITHOUT PREJUDICE AND 

NOTIFYING PETITIONER OF 

OPTIONS TO AVOID FUTURE 

DISMISSAL OF MIXED PETITION 

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

Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, but has neither paid the $5.00 filing fee nor 

submitted a request to proceed in forma pauperis. ECF No. 1. The Petition is subject to 

dismissal for failure to satisfy the filing fee requirement and failure to allege exhaustion of 

state court remedies as to every claim. 

FILING FEE REQUIREMENT 

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. To have this case reopened, Petitioner must submit, no later than December 

31, 2019, a copy of this Order with the $5.00 fee or with adequate proof of his inability to 

pay the fee. 

Case 3:19-cv-02072-MMA-RBM Document 2 Filed 11/04/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 5
2 

19cv2072-MMA (RBM) 

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

EXHAUSTION OF STATE COURT REMEDIES 

The Petition presents eleven claims. ECF No. 1 at 6–50. Petitioner indicates that he 

has only presented claim one to the state supreme court and has not presented the remaining 

claims to that court. Id.

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). The burden of proving a claim has been 

exhausted lies with Petitioner. Cartwright v. Cupp, 650 F.2d 1103, 1104 (9th Cir. 1981). 

 “[F]ederal district courts must dismiss mixed habeas petitions.” Pliler v. Ford, 542 

U.S. 225, 230 (2004) (citing Rose v. Lundy, 455 U.S. 509, 510, 522 (1982)). As set forth 

above, the Petition is dismissed for failure to satisfy the filing fee requirement. However, 

anticipating that Petitioner may pay the filing fee or be granted leave to proceed in forma 

pauperis and have the case reopened, the Petition will remain subject to dismissal as 

containing one exhausted claim and ten unexhausted claims. The Court hereby notifies 

Petitioner of his options to avoid a future dismissal of a mixed petition for failing to allege 

complete exhaustion of state court remedies if he satisfies the filing fee requirement. 

Case 3:19-cv-02072-MMA-RBM Document 2 Filed 11/04/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 5
3 

19cv2072-MMA (RBM) 

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

i) First Option: Allege Complete Exhaustion 

Petitioner may allege he has in fact exhausted state court remedies as to all claims. 

ii) Second Option: Voluntarily Dismiss the Petition 

Petitioner may move to voluntarily dismiss his entire federal petition and return to 

state court to exhaust his unexhausted claims. He may then file a new federal petition 

containing only exhausted claims. See Rose v. Lundy, 455 U.S. 509, 510, 520–21 (stating 

that a petitioner who files a mixed petition may dismiss his petition to “return[] to state 

court to exhaust his claims.”) Petitioner is cautioned that any new federal petition must be 

filed before expiration of the one-year statute of limitations. Ordinarily, a petitioner has 

one year from when his conviction became final to file his federal petition, unless he can 

show that statutory or equitable “tolling” applies. Duncan v. Walker, 533 U.S. 167, 176 

(2001); 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d).

1 

The statute of limitations does not run while a properly filed state habeas corpus 

petition is pending in state court. 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(2); see Nino v. Galaza, 183 F.3d 

                                                                

1 28 U.S.C. § 2244 (d) provides: 

(1) A 1-year period of limitation shall apply to an application 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. 

(2) The time during which a properly filed application for State postconviction or other collateral review with respect to the pertinent judgement or claim is pending shall not be counted toward any period of limitation under this subsection. 

Case 3:19-cv-02072-MMA-RBM Document 2 Filed 11/04/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 5
4 

19cv2072-MMA (RBM) 

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

1003, 1006 (9th Cir. 1999) (“[W]e hold that the statute of limitations is tolled from the time 

the first state habeas petition is filed until the California Supreme Court rejects the 

petitioner’s final collateral challenge.”), overruled in part by Carey v. Saffold, 536 U.S. 

214, 225–26 (2002) (holding that if a petitioner unreasonably delays filing a habeas petition 

in a higher California court after a denial in a lower court, he is not entitled to statutory 

tolling during the gap between those petitions). 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, as 

amended 439 F.3d 993 (9th Cir. 2005) (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 statutorily toll 

the statute of limitations). However, absent some other basis for tolling, the statute of 

limitations continues to run while a federal habeas petition is pending. Duncan, 533 U.S. 

at 181-82. 

iii) Third Option: File a Motion to Stay the Federal Proceedings 

Petitioner may file a motion to stay this proceeding while he returns to state court to 

exhaust his unexhausted claims. There are two methods potentially available to Petitioner, 

the “stay and abeyance” procedure and the “withdrawal and abeyance” procedure. 

If Petitioner wishes to use the “stay and abeyance” procedure he should ask the Court 

to stay his mixed petition while he returns to state court to exhaust. Under this procedure 

he must show he has arguably meritorious claims which he wishes to return to state court 

to exhaust, that he is diligently pursuing his state court remedies with respect to the claims, 

and that good cause exists for his failure to timely exhaust his state court remedies. Rhines 

v. Webber, 544 U.S. 269, 277–78 (2005). 

If Petitioner wishes to use the “withdrawal and abeyance” procedure, he must 

voluntarily withdraw his unexhausted claims, ask the Court to stay the proceedings and 

hold the fully-exhausted petition in abeyance while he returns to state court to exhaust, and

Case 3:19-cv-02072-MMA-RBM Document 2 Filed 11/04/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 5
5 

19cv2072-MMA (RBM) 

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

then seek permission to amend his petition to include the newly exhausted claim after 

exhaustion is complete. King v. Ryan, 564 F.3d. 1133, 1135 (9th Cir. 2009). Although 

under this procedure Petitioner is not required to demonstrate good cause for his failure to 

timely exhaust, the newly exhausted claims must be either timely under the statute of 

limitations or “relate back” to the claims in the fully-exhausted petition, that is, they must 

share a “common core of operative facts” with the previously exhausted claims. King, 564 

F.3d at 1141 (quoting Mayle v. Felix, 545 U.S. 644, 659 (2005)). 

CONCLUSION AND ORDER 

The Court DISMISSES the Petition without prejudice for failure to satisfy the filing 

fee requirement. To proceed with this matter Petitioner must, on or before December 31, 

2019, pay the $5.00 filing fee or submit a request to proceed in forma pauperis and choose 

one of the options listed above in order to avoid having his petition dismissed for failing to 

allege exhaustion of state court remedies as to all claims presented. The Clerk of Court 

shall send Petitioner a blank Southern District of California in forma pauperis application 

along with a copy of this Order. 

 IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: November 1, 2019. 

Hon. Michael M. Anello 

United States District Judge 

Case 3:19-cv-02072-MMA-RBM Document 2 Filed 11/04/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 5 of 5