Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-01275/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-01275-1/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

17cv1275 GPC (BGS)

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

LUIS SANDOVAL,

Petitioner,

v.

UNKNOWN,

Respondent.

Case No.: 17cv1275 GPC (BGS)

ORDER DISMISSING CASE 

WITHOUT PREJUDICE AND WITH 

LEAVE TO AMEND

On June 16, 2017, Petitioner, proceeding pro se, filed a document with this Court 

entitled “In Pro Per Writ of Habeas Corpus” [ECF No. 1]. The Court dismissed the 

action without prejudice and with leave to amend on June 27, 2017, because Petitioner 

had failed to satisfy the filing fee requirement, was not in custody, had failed to state a 

cognizable federal claim or allege exhaustion of his claims, and had failed to name a 

proper respondent [ECF No. 2]. Petitioner was given until August 29, 2017, to either pay 

the $5.00 filing fee or submit adequate proof of his inability to pay the fee, and to submit 

a First Amended Petition that cured the pleading deficiencies outlined in the Court’s June 

27, 2017 Order. Id.

On July 13, 2017, Petitioner filed a document which the Court construes as a First 

Amended Petition.

/ / /

Case 3:17-cv-01275-GPC-BGS Document 8 Filed 07/17/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 6
2

17cv1275 GPC (BGS)

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

FAILURE TO SATISFY FILING FEE REQUIREMENT

Petitioner has again failed to either pay the $5.00 filing fee or move to proceed in 

forma pauperis. This Court cannot proceed until Petitioner has either paid the $5.00 

filing fee or qualified to proceed in forma pauperis. See Rule 3(a), 28 U.S.C. foll. 

§ 2254. 

IN CUSTODY REQUIREMENT

Upon review of the First Amended Petition, it appears Petitioner is not in the 

custody of the State of California, nor was he when he filed the Petition because he lists 

his address as “24611⁄2 J. St., San Diego, CA 92102.” “Subject matter jurisdiction under 

the federal habeas corpus statute, 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a), is limited to those persons ‘in 

custody pursuant to the judgment of a State.’” Brock v. Weston, 31 F.3d 887, 889 (9th 

Cir. 1994); see also 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c)(3). It is a jurisdictional requirement that, at the 

time a habeas petition is filed, “the habeas petitioner be ‘in custody’ under the conviction 

or sentence under attack.” Maleng v. Cook, 490 U.S. 488, 490-91 (1989) (citing 28 

U.S.C. §§ 2241(c)(3) & 2254(a)); see Carafas v. LaVallee, 391 U.S. 234, 238 (1968)). 

FAILURE TO STATE A COGNIZABLE CLAIM

As with Petitioner’s first filing, it is not clear what Petitioner’s claims are and 

whether they are cognizable on federal habeas review. Challenges to the fact or duration 

of confinement are brought by petition for a writ of habeas corpus, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2254; challenges to conditions of confinement are brought pursuant to the Civil Rights 

Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1983. See Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 488-500 (1973). When a 

state prisoner is challenging the very fact or duration of his physical imprisonment, and 

the relief he seeks is a determination that he is entitled to immediate release or a speedier 

release from that imprisonment, his sole federal remedy is a writ of habeas corpus. Id. at 

500. On the other hand, a § 1983 action is a proper remedy for a state prisoner who is 

making a constitutional challenge to the conditions of his prison life, but not to the fact or 

length of his custody. Id. at 499; see 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a); Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 

477, 480-85 (1994). 

Case 3:17-cv-01275-GPC-BGS Document 8 Filed 07/17/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 6
3

17cv1275 GPC (BGS)

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

Petitioner’s claims are not comprehensible in their current form. If Petitioner 

wishes to challenge the conditions of prison life, but not the fact or length of his custody, 

he must file a civil rights complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. If he wishes to 

challenge the validity of a state court conviction or the length of his sentence, 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2254 is the appropriate method to do so.

FAILURE TO ALLEGE EXHAUSTION OF STATE JUDICIAL REMEDIES

Further, Petitioner has not alleged 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. 

§ 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 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. 

Further, the Court cautions Petitioner that under the Antiterrorism and Effective 

Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA) a one-year period of limitation applies 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 runs 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;

Case 3:17-cv-01275-GPC-BGS Document 8 Filed 07/17/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 6
4

17cv1275 GPC (BGS)

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

(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.

FAILURE TO NAME A PROPER RESPONDENT

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. OrtizSandoval v. Gomez, 81 F.3d 891, 894 (9th Cir. 1996) (citing Rule 2(a), 28 U.S.C. foll. 

Case 3:17-cv-01275-GPC-BGS Document 8 Filed 07/17/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 6
5

17cv1275 GPC (BGS)

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

§ 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). If a “petitioner is on probation or parole, he may 

name his probation or parole officer ‘and the official in charge of the parole or probation 

agency, or the state correctional agency, as appropriate.’” 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.

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, the Director of the California Department of Corrections, or if he is 

on parole, his parole officer and the official in charge of the parole agency. See

Brittingham v. United States, 982 F.2d 378, 379 (9th Cir. 1992) (per curiam); OrtizSandoval, 81 F.3d at 894. In California, the Director of the Department of Corrections is 

the official in charge of the parole agency. See In re Lusero, 4 Cal. App. 4th 572, 576 

Case 3:17-cv-01275-GPC-BGS Document 8 Filed 07/17/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 5 of 6
6

17cv1275 GPC (BGS)

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

(1992) (“During the period of parole following incarceration, an inmate continues in the 

custody of the department.”). 

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the Court DISMISSES the First Amended Petition 

without prejudice and with leave to amend. To have this case reopened, Petitioner must, 

no later than September 12, 2017: (1) pay the $5.00 filing fee or submit adequate proof 

of his inability to pay the fee; AND (2) file a First Amended Petition that cures the 

pleading deficiencies outlined in Order. If Petitioner wishes to challenge the conditions 

of his confinement, he must file a new civil complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 

which will be given a new case number. The Clerk of Court is directed to mail 

Petitioner a blank Prisoner Packet together with a copy of this Order. Petitioner’s 

failure to amend and failure to cure the deficiencies may result in dismissal of the 

case with prejudice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 17, 2017

Case 3:17-cv-01275-GPC-BGS Document 8 Filed 07/17/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 6 of 6