Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_19-cv-02127/USCOURTS-casd-3_19-cv-02127-0/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 

19cv2127 MMA (BLM) 

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 

GARLAND JONES, 

Petitioner, 

v. 

M. POLLARD, Warden, 

Respondent. 

 Case No.: 19cv2127 MMA (BLM) 

ORDER 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. 

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. If Petitioner wishes to 

proceed with this case, he must submit, no later than January 13, 2020, 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-02127-MMA-BLM Document 2 Filed 11/18/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 5
2 

19cv2127 MMA (BLM) 

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 CLAIM ON FEDERAL HABEAS 

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 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 the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation 

“purposely withheld documents,” seemingly related to a civil rights complaint. (Pet. at 6, 

ECF No. 1.) Petitioner further alleges prison officials have failed to adequately protect 

him while in custody. (Id. at 8.) 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. Petitioner’s claims are not cognizable on habeas because they do not 

challenge the constitutional validity or duration of confinement. See 28 U.S.C. § 

2254(a); Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 500 (1973); Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 

477, 480–85 (1994). 

 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 

Case 3:19-cv-02127-MMA-BLM Document 2 Filed 11/18/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 5
3 

19cv2127 MMA (BLM) 

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

are brought pursuant to the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1983. See Preiser, 411 U.S. at 

488-500. 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 his custody. Id. at 499; McIntosh v. United States Parole 

Comm’n, 115 F.3d 809, 811-12 (10th Cir. 1997). 

 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 

Case 3:19-cv-02127-MMA-BLM Document 2 Filed 11/18/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 5
4 

19cv2127 MMA (BLM) 

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

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. § 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 

 Based on the foregoing, the Court DISMISSES this action without prejudice 

because Petitioner has failed to satisfy the filing fee requirement and failed to state a 

cognizable federal claim. To have this case reopened, Petitioner must, no later than 

January 13, 2020: (1) either pay the filing fee or provide adequate proof of his inability 

to pay AND (2) file a First Amended Petition that cures the pleading deficiencies set 

Case 3:19-cv-02127-MMA-BLM Document 2 Filed 11/18/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 5
5 

19cv2127 MMA (BLM) 

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

forth above. For Petitioner’s convenience, a blank In Form Pauperis Application and a 

blank First Amended Petition form are included with this Order. 

 IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: November 18, 2019 

 HON. MICHAEL M. ANELLO 

 United States District Judge 

Case 3:19-cv-02127-MMA-BLM Document 2 Filed 11/18/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 5 of 5