Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_09-cv-02501/USCOURTS-casd-3_09-cv-02501-0/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

K:\COMMON\EVERYONE\_EFILE-PROSE\DMS\09cv2501-Dismiss.wpd, 11129 -1- 09cv2501

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ARTHUR FREDERICK LUTE, III, Civil No. 09cv2501-DMS (WMc)

Petitioner,

ORDER DISMISSING CASE 

v. WITHOUT PREJUDICE

CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF

CORRECTIONS,

Respondent.

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

Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, but 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 11, 2010, a copy of this Order with the

$5.00 fee or with adequate proof of his inability to pay the fee. The Court notes that Petitioner

includes a request for an in forma pauperis application. (Pet. at 1.) The Clerk of Court will

provide Petitioner with a blank Southern District of California In Forma Pauperis Application

along with a copy of this Order.

In addition, it appears that the Petition is subject to dismissal because Petitioner has failed

to name a proper Respondent, has failed to state a cognizable claim and has failed to allege

Case 3:09-cv-02501-DMS-WMC Document 2 Filed 11/12/09 Page 1 of 6
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

K:\COMMON\EVERYONE\_EFILE-PROSE\DMS\09cv2501-Dismiss.wpd, 11129 -2- 09cv2501

exhaustion of his state court remedies. Petitioner is granted leave to file a First Amended

Petition in an attempt to cure these pleading defects no later that January 11, 2010.

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). “Typically, that person is the warden of the facility in which the petitioner

is incarcerated.” Id. 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).

Here, Petitioner has incorrectly named “California Department of Corrections” as

Respondent. 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. 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 and Rehabilitation.

Brittingham v. United States, 982 F.2d 378, 379 (9th Cir. 1992) (per curiam).

Case 3:09-cv-02501-DMS-WMC Document 2 Filed 11/12/09 Page 2 of 6
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

K:\COMMON\EVERYONE\_EFILE-PROSE\DMS\09cv2501-Dismiss.wpd, 11129 -3- 09cv2501

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 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 his counsel was incompetent, that there was coercion between

the Deputy District Attorney and defense counsel, that defense counsel violated duties and rules,

and there were dishonest court practices. (Pet. at 6-9.) Petitioner does not claim he is “in

custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C.

§ 2254. If Petitioner contends that he received constitutionally ineffective assistance of counsel

in violation of the Sixth Amendment, for example, he should specifically say so. 

Further, the Court notes that Petitioner may not be able to 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 with respect to any federal claim before bringing his claims via federal

habeas.

FAILURE TO ALLEGE EXHAUSTION OF STATE JUDICIAL REMEDIES

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.

Case 3:09-cv-02501-DMS-WMC Document 2 Filed 11/12/09 Page 3 of 6
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

K:\COMMON\EVERYONE\_EFILE-PROSE\DMS\09cv2501-Dismiss.wpd, 11129 -4- 09cv2501

§ 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).

Petitioner has specifically indicated that he did not present his claims to the California

Supreme Court. (See Pet. at 6-9.) If Petitioner has raised his claims in the California Supreme

Court he must so specify. The burden of proving that a claim has been exhausted lies with the

petitioner. Cartwright v. Cupp, 650 F.2d 1103, 1104 (9th Cir.1981).

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

Case 3:09-cv-02501-DMS-WMC Document 2 Filed 11/12/09 Page 4 of 6
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

K:\COMMON\EVERYONE\_EFILE-PROSE\DMS\09cv2501-Dismiss.wpd, 11129 -5- 09cv2501

(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 2006).

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 attached exhibits 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.

CONCLUSION

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

Petitioner has failed to satisfy filing fee requirements, failed to allege exhaustion of state judicial

remedies and failed to state a cognizable federal claim. To have this case reopened, Petitioner

must, no later than January 11, 2010, pay the $5.00 filing fee or submit adequate proof of his

inability to pay the fee, and file a First Amended Petition that cures the pleading deficiencies

set forth above. The Clerk of Court shall send a blank Southern District of California in forma

pauperis application and a blank Southern District of California amended habeas petition form

to Petitioner along with a copy of this Order.

Further, Petitioner is advised that if he has not submitted a First Amended Petition stating

a cognizable federal claim(s) and alleging exhaustion of his state court remedies with regard to

/ / /

/ / /

Case 3:09-cv-02501-DMS-WMC Document 2 Filed 11/12/09 Page 5 of 6
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

K:\COMMON\EVERYONE\_EFILE-PROSE\DMS\09cv2501-Dismiss.wpd, 11129 -6- 09cv2501

that claim(s) before January 11, 2010, he will have to start over by filing a completely new

habeas petition in this Court. See In re Turner, 101 F.3d 1323 (9th Cir. 1997).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: November 12, 2009

HON. DANA M. SABRAW

United States District Judge

CC: ALL PARTIES

Case 3:09-cv-02501-DMS-WMC Document 2 Filed 11/12/09 Page 6 of 6