Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-00069/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-00069-0/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

18cv0069 CAB (KSC)

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

GLYNDON RIVERA,

Petitioner,

v.

BILL GORE, Sheriff,

Respondent.

Case No. 18cv0069 CAB (KSC)

ORDER: (1) GRANTING 

APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN 

FORMA PAUPERIS AND (2) 

DISMISSING PETITION WITHOUT 

PREJUDICE

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

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

Petitioner has $0.10 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 without being required to post security. 

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:

Case 3:18-cv-00069-CAB-KSC Document 3 Filed 01/16/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 4
2

18cv0069 CAB (KSC)

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

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’s claims arise from proceedings which took place in San Diego 

County Family Court. He contends his constitutional rights were violated when his 

paternal rights were “taken away.” Petitioner’s claims are not cognizable on habeas 

because they do not challenge the constitutional validity or duration of Petitioner’s 

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).1 In no way 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. 

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 

 

1 Petitioner has a complaint, filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, pending before this Court in case 

number 17cv2225 WQH (NLS). The claims presented in the § 1983 complaint are similar to those 

contained in the instant Petition. 

Case 3:18-cv-00069-CAB-KSC Document 3 Filed 01/16/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 4
3

18cv0069 CAB (KSC)

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

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 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.

Case 3:18-cv-00069-CAB-KSC Document 3 Filed 01/16/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 4
4

18cv0069 CAB (KSC)

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

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

For the reasons discussed above, the Court GRANTS the application to proceed in 

forma pauperis and DISMISSES the Petition without prejudice, for lack of subject matter 

jurisdiction. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 16, 2018

Case 3:18-cv-00069-CAB-KSC Document 3 Filed 01/16/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 4