Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_12-cv-00348/USCOURTS-casd-3_12-cv-00348-0/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

-1-

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ERNIE DIAZ, Civil No. 12-0348 MMA (BGS)

Petitioner,

ORDER: 

(1) CONSTRUING TRUST ACCOUNT

STATEMENT AS A MOTION TO

PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS;

(2) GRANTING MOTION TO

PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS; 

(3) DISMISSING CASE 

WITHOUT PREJUDICE AND WITH

LEAVE TO AMEND

v.

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, 

Respondent.

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

Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, together with a trust account statement from the prison in

which he is incarcerated. The Court hereby CONSTRUES the trust account statement as a

motion to proceed in forma pauperis.

MOTION 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

Case 3:12-cv-00348-MMA-BGS Document 3 Filed 02/13/12 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

-2-

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.

JURISDICTION

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 Pelican Bay State

Prison, located in Del Norte, which is within the jurisdictional boundaries of the United States

District Court for the Northern District of California. See 28 U.S.C. § 84(a). Petitioner does not

state where his state court conviction occurred. Accordingly, it is not clear whether this Court

has jurisdiction over the petition. Should Petitioner file a First Amended Petition in this case,

he is directed to advise the Court where the state court conviction he seeks to challenge occurred.

FAILURE TO NAME PROPER RESPONDENT

Review of the Petition also 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.

Case 3:12-cv-00348-MMA-BGS Document 3 Filed 02/13/12 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

-3-

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 “People of the State of California,” as Respondent.

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). Ordinarily, to satisfy the

exhaustion requirement, a petitioner must “‘fairly present[]’ his federal claim to the highest state

court with jurisdiction to consider it, or . . . demonstrate[] that no state remedy remains

available.” Johnson v. Zenon, 88 F.3d 828, 829 (9th Cir. 1996) (citations omitted). 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. 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.” See Duncan v. Henry, 513 U.S. 364, 365-66 (1995) (emphasis added).

Nowhere in 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. 

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

Case 3:12-cv-00348-MMA-BGS Document 3 Filed 02/13/12 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

-4-

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 from the Petition that Petitioner is not presently entitled to federal

habeas relief because he has not alleged exhaustion of state court remedies.

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.

/ / /

Case 3:12-cv-00348-MMA-BGS Document 3 Filed 02/13/12 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

-5-

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 state sentencing court failed to adhere to the proper

guidelines in imposing a restitution fine on him. (Pet. at 3-10.) 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, Petitioner is advised that he 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 as stated above.

CONCLUSION

For the reasons set forth above, the Court CONSTRUES Petitioner’s trust account

statement as a motion to proceed in forma pauperis, GRANTS the motion to proceed in forma

pauperis, and DISMISSES this action without prejudice and with leave to amend. To have this

case reopened, Petitioner must, no later than April 17, 2012, file a First Amended Petition that

cures the pleading deficiencies set forth above.

/ / /

/ / /

Case 3:12-cv-00348-MMA-BGS Document 3 Filed 02/13/12 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

-6-

The Clerk of Court is directed to mail Petitioner a blank First Amended Petition form

together with a copy of this Order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: February 13, 2012

Hon. Michael M. Anello

United States District Judge

Case 3:12-cv-00348-MMA-BGS Document 3 Filed 02/13/12 Page 6 of 6