Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-00008/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-00008-0/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

C:\Documents and Settings\Lc2gon\Desktop\11cv0008 grant ifp & dismiss.wpd, 11011 -1- 11cv0008

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RUBEN CHAVARRIA, Civil No. 11-0008 IEG (RBB)

Petitioner,

ORDER:

(1) GRANTING APPLICATION TO

PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS and

(2) DISMISSING PETITION WITHOUT

PREJUDICE

v.

ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER, et al,

Respondents.

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

Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254.

REQUEST TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS

Petitioner has filed a request to proceed in forma pauperis. Petitioner has $0.00 on

account at the California correctional institution in which he is presently confined. Petitioner

cannot afford the $5.00 filing fee. Thus, the Court GRANTS Petitioner’s application to proceed

in forma pauperis, and allows Petitioner to prosecute the above-referenced action as a poor

person without being required to prepay fees or costs and without being required to post security.

The Clerk of the Court shall file the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus without prepayment of

the filing fee.

//

Case 3:11-cv-00008-IEG-RBB Document 3 Filed 01/07/11 Page 1 of 5
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

C:\Documents and Settings\Lc2gon\Desktop\11cv0008 grant ifp & dismiss.wpd, 11011 -2- 11cv0008

FAILURE TO NAME PROPER RESPONDENT

Review of the Petition reveals that Petitioner has failed to name a proper respondent. On

federal habeas, a state prisoner must name the state officer having custody of him as the

respondent. Ortiz-Sandoval v. Gomez, 81 F.3d 891, 894 (9th Cir. 1996) (citing Rule 2(a), 28

U.S.C. foll. § 2254). Federal courts lack personal jurisdiction when a habeas petition fails to

name a proper respondent. See id.

The warden is the typical respondent. However, “the rules following section 2254 do not

specify the warden.” Id. “[T]he ‘state officer having custody’ may be ‘either the warden of the

institution in which the petitioner is incarcerated . . . or the chief officer in charge of state penal

institutions.’” Id. (quoting Rule 2(a), 28 U.S.C. foll. § 2254 advisory committee’s note). If “a

petitioner is in custody due to the state action he is challenging, ‘[t]he named respondent shall

be the state officer who has official custody of the petitioner (for example, the warden of the

prison).’” Id. (quoting Rule 2, 28 U.S.C. foll. § 2254 advisory committee’s note).

A long standing rule in the Ninth Circuit holds “that a petitioner may not seek [a writ of]

habeas corpus against the State under . . . [whose] authority . . . the petitioner is in custody. The

actual person who is [the] custodian [of the petitioner] must be the respondent.” Ashley v.

Washington, 394 F.2d 125, 126 (9th Cir. 1968). This requirement exists because a writ of

habeas corpus acts upon the custodian of the state prisoner, the person who will produce “the

body” if directed to do so by the Court. “Both the warden of a California prison and the Director

of Corrections for California have the power to produce the prisoner.” Ortiz-Sandoval, 81 F.3d

at 895.

Here, Petitioner has incorrectly named “Arnold Schwarzenegger” as Respondent.

Additionally, Jerry Brown, the former Attorney General of the State of California, is not a proper

respondent in this action. Rule 2 of the Rules following § 2254 provides that the state officer

having custody of the petitioner shall be named as respondent. Rule 2(a), 28 U.S.C. foll. § 2254.

However, “if the applicant is not presently in custody pursuant to a state judgement against

which he seeks relief but may be subject to such custody in the future,” then “the officer having

present custody of the applicant as well as the attorney general of the state in which the judgment

Case 3:11-cv-00008-IEG-RBB Document 3 Filed 01/07/11 Page 2 of 5
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

C:\Documents and Settings\Lc2gon\Desktop\11cv0008 grant ifp & dismiss.wpd, 11011 -3- 11cv0008

which he seeks to attack was entered shall each be named as respondents.” Rule 2 (b), 28 U.S.C.

foll. § 2254. Here, there is no basis for Petitioner to have named the Attorney General as a

respondent in this action.

In order for this Court to entertain the Petition filed in this action, Petitioner must name

the warden in charge of the state correctional facility in which Petitioner is presently confined

or the Director of the California Department of Corrections. Brittingham v. United States, 982

F.2d 378, 379 (9th Cir. 1992) (per curiam). 

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. In fact, he specifically indicates he did not seek review in the California

Supreme Court. (See Pet. at 6.) If Petitioner has raised his claim 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 (4th Cir. 1998); Lambert v. Blackwell, 134 F.3d 506, 513 (3d Cir. 1997); Oyler v. 

Case 3:11-cv-00008-IEG-RBB Document 3 Filed 01/07/11 Page 3 of 5
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

C:\Documents and Settings\Lc2gon\Desktop\11cv0008 grant ifp & dismiss.wpd, 11011 -4- 11cv0008

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.

//

Case 3:11-cv-00008-IEG-RBB Document 3 Filed 01/07/11 Page 4 of 5
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

C:\Documents and Settings\Lc2gon\Desktop\11cv0008 grant ifp & dismiss.wpd, 11011 -5- 11cv0008

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Petitioner’s request to proceed in forma pauperis, and

DISMISSES the Petition without prejudice due to Petitioner’s failure to name a proper

respondent and allege exhaustion as to state judicial remedies. To have this case reopened,

Petitioner must file a First Amended Petition no later than March 15, 2011 in conformance with

this Order. The Clerk of Court is directed to send Petitioner a blank First Amended Petition

along with a copy of this Order. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: _______________________ _________________________________________

Hon. Irma E. Gonzalez, Chief Judge

United States District Court

1/7/11

Case 3:11-cv-00008-IEG-RBB Document 3 Filed 01/07/11 Page 5 of 5