Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_10-cv-02117/USCOURTS-casd-3_10-cv-02117-1/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\WQH\10cv2117 dismiss FAP.wpd, 112310 -1- 10cv2117

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

STEVEN JONES, Civil No. 10cv2117-WQH (WMc)

Petitioner,

ORDER DISMISSING FIRST

AMENDED PETITION

WITHOUT PREJUDICE

v.

STATE OF CALIFORNIA, et al.,

Respondents.

On October 8, 2010, Petitioner, a person confined at Atascadero State Hospital,

proceeding pro se, submitted a two-page document titled “Mental Health Harassment” which

was docketed as a Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. On

October 27, 2010, this Court issued an Order dismissing the case for Petitioner’s failure to name

a proper respondent, failure to state grounds for relief in the petition, and failure to use a courtapproved form. Petitioner was instructed that to have this case reopened he had to file a First

Amended Petition no later than December 15, 2010. 

On November 15, 2010, Petitioner filed a First Amended Petition. For the following

reasons, the First Amended Petition is dismissed without prejudice.

//

//

Case 3:10-cv-02117-WQH-WMC Document 11 Filed 11/23/10 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\WQH\10cv2117 dismiss FAP.wpd, 112310 -2- 10cv2117

FAILURE TO STATE GROUNDS FOR RELIEF IN PETITION

As before, the Petition contains no claims or factual allegations whatsoever. Rule 2(c)

of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases states that the petition must “specify all grounds for

relief available to the petitioner [and] state the facts supporting each ground.” Rule 2(c), 28

U.S.C. foll. § 2254. Here, Petitioner has violated Rule 2(c).

In order to satisfy Rule 2(c), Petitioner must point to a “real possibility of constitutional

error.” Cf. Blackledge v. Allison, 431 U.S. 63, 75 n.7 (1977) (internal quotation marks omitted).

Facts must be stated, in the petition, with sufficient detail to enable the Court to determine, from

the face of the petition, whether further habeas corpus review is warranted. Adams v.

Armontrout, 897 F.2d 332, 334 (8th Cir. 1990). Moreover, the allegations should be sufficiently

specific to permit the respondent to assert appropriate objections and defenses. Harris v. Allen,

739 F. Supp. 564, 565 (W.D. Okla. 1989). Here, the lack of grounds for relief in the Petition

prevents a respondent from being able to assert appropriate objections and defenses.

FAILURE TO NAME PROPER RESPONDENT

In addition, review of the Petition reveals that Petitioner has again 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 foll. U.S.C. § 2254). “Typically, this person is the warden of the facility in which the

petitioner is incarcerated.” 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 foll. U.S.C. § 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 foll. U.S.C. § 2254 advisory committee’s note).

However, if a “petitioner is on probation or parole, he may name his probation or parole officer

Case 3:10-cv-02117-WQH-WMC Document 11 Filed 11/23/10 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\WQH\10cv2117 dismiss FAP.wpd, 112310 -3- 10cv2117

‘and the official in charge of the parole or probation agency, or the state correctional agency, as

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

cases, a petitioner may name the state attorney general. Id.

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 “State of California,” “California Department of

Corrections” and “Atascadero State Hospital,” as Respondents. In order for this Court to

entertain a Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus, Petitioner must name the warden or state officer

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

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

VENUE

A petition for writ of habeas corpus may be filed in the United States District Court of

either the judicial district in which the petitioner is presently confined or the judicial district in

which he was convicted and sentenced. See 28 U.S.C. § 2241(d); Braden v. 30th Judicial Circuit

Court, 410 U.S. 484, 497 (1973). Petitioner is presently confined at Atascadero State Hospital,

located in San Luis Obispo County, which is within the jurisdictional boundaries of the United

States District Court for the Central District of California, Western Division. See 28 U.S.C.

§ 84(c)(2). Petitioner states that the state court conviction he is challenging occurred in the San

Diego Superior Court, which is within the jurisdictional boundaries of the United States District

Court for the Southern District of California, and that he is challenging a conviction that

occurred in the San Luis Obispo Superior Court, which is within the jurisdictional boundaries

of the United States District Court for the Central District of California, Western Division. See

Case 3:10-cv-02117-WQH-WMC Document 11 Filed 11/23/10 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\WQH\10cv2117 dismiss FAP.wpd, 112310 -4- 10cv2117

28 U.S.C. § 84(c)-(d). Thus, it is currently unclear whether this Court has jurisdiction in this

matter. Petitioner must tell the Court where he suffered the conviction which he seeks to

challenge in this matter.

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 claims in the California

Supreme Court. 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.”

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. 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:

Case 3:10-cv-02117-WQH-WMC Document 11 Filed 11/23/10 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\WQH\10cv2117 dismiss FAP.wpd, 112310 -5- 10cv2117

(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 3:10-cv-02117-WQH-WMC Document 11 Filed 11/23/10 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\WQH\10cv2117 dismiss FAP.wpd, 112310 -6- 10cv2117

CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, the Court DISMISSES this case without prejudice due to

Petitioner’s failure to state grounds for relief in the Petition, failure to name a proper respondent,

failure to demonstrate that venue is proper in this Court, and failure to allege exhaustion of state

judicial remedies. Petitioner may file a Second Amended Petition no later than December 15,

2010 in conformance with this Order. The Clerk of Court shall send Petitioner a blank

Southern District of California Second Amended Petition form along with a copy of this

Order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: November 23, 2010

WILLIAM Q. HAYES

United States District Judge

Case 3:10-cv-02117-WQH-WMC Document 11 Filed 11/23/10 Page 6 of 6