Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-02498/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-02498-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 540
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Mandamus and Other
Cause of Action: 28:2241fd Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (federal)

---

1

17cv2498 GPC (AGS)

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

GILBERT CARRASCO,

Petitioner,

v.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Respondent.

Case No.: 17cv2498 GPC (AGS)

ORDER: (1) DENYING MOTION TO 

PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS; 

and (2) DISMISSING CASE 

WITHOUT PREJUDICE

Petitioner, proceeding pro se, has filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant 

to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, together with a motion to proceed in forma pauperis.

MOTION 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. 

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

Case 3:17-cv-02498-GPC-AGS Document 3 Filed 12/19/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 4
2

17cv2498 GPC (AGS)

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

FAILURE TO STATE A COGNIZABLE FEDERAL CLAIM

Additionally, 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.

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 also Hernandez v. Ylst, 930 F.2d 714, 719 

(9th Cir. 1991). 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.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a). 

Here, Petitioner claims he has been denied reasonable bail during the federal

criminal case he has in this Court, his attorney in that case “acted as an agent of the state” 

by seeking more time to prepare, he is being subject to cruel and unusual punishment 

while he is in federal pretrial custody, and he is entitled to lost wages as a result of being 

denied bail. (Pet. at 2-14, ECF No. 1.) In other words, Petitioner does not assert that he 

is in custody pursuant to a judgment of a state court.

The Court also notes that Petitioner cannot simply amend his Petition to state a 

proper § 2254 claim and then refile the amended petition in this case. He must first

exhaust state judicial remedies before bringing his claims via § 2254. 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 

Case 3:17-cv-02498-GPC-AGS Document 3 Filed 12/19/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 4
3

17cv2498 GPC (AGS)

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

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).

The Court also cautions Petitioner that under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death 

Penalty Act of 1996 (Act), signed into law on April 24, 1996, a one-year period of 

limitation applies 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 runs 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. § 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 

Case 3:17-cv-02498-GPC-AGS Document 3 Filed 12/19/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 4
4

17cv2498 GPC (AGS)

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

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

Based on the foregoing, the Court DENIES Petitioner’s motion to proceed in 

forma pauperis and DISMISSES this action without prejudice. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 19, 2017

Case 3:17-cv-02498-GPC-AGS Document 3 Filed 12/19/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 4