Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-00061/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-00061-0/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

17cv0061 GPC (PCL)

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

RYAN CHILCOTE,

Petitioner,

v.

UNKNOWN,

Respondent.

Case No.: 17cv0061 GPC (PCL)

ORDER: (1) DISMISSING CASE

WITHOUT PREJUDICE AND WITH 

LEAVE TO AMEND; and (2) 

NOTIFYING PETITIONER OF 

OPTIONS TO CURE FAILURE TO 

EXHAUST STATE COURT 

REMEDIES

Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed a petition for writ of habeas 

corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254.

FAILURE TO SATISFY FILING FEE REQUIREMENT

Petitioner has failed to pay the $5.00 filing fee and has failed to 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.

FAILURE TO NAME A 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. 

Case 3:17-cv-00061-GPC-PCL Document 2 Filed 01/12/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 5
2

17cv0061 GPC (PCL)

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

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. 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 not named a 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 Secretary of the 

California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. Brittingham v. United States, 

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

FAILURE TO ALLEGE EXHAUSTION AS TO ALL CLAIMS

Petitioner is required to demonstrate exhaustion of his state judicial remedies. See 

Rose v. Lundy, 455 U.S. 509, 522 (1982). Petitioner has not alleged exhaustion as to 

claims two through four. (See Pet. at 5.) 

/ / /

Case 3:17-cv-00061-GPC-PCL Document 2 Filed 01/12/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 5
3

17cv0061 GPC (PCL)

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 exhaustion requirement is satisfied by providing the state courts with a “fair 

opportunity” to rule on Petitioner’s constitutional claims. Anderson v. Harless, 459 U.S. 

4, 6 (1982). In most instances, a claim is exhausted once it is presented to a state’s 

highest court, either on direct appeal or through state collateral proceedings. See 

Sandgathe v. Maass, 314 F.3d 371, 376 (9th Cir. 2002). The constitutional claim raised 

in the federal proceedings must be the same as that raised in the state proceedings. See 

id. Here, Petitioner’s claims two through four appear to be unexhausted.

PETITIONER’S OPTIONS

As discussed above, the Petition is dismissed because Petitioner has failed to 

satisfy the filing fee requirement and has failed to name a proper Respondent. Once 

Petitioner cures those deficiencies, in order to prevent the Petition from remaining 

dismissed, Petitioner must choose one of the following options.

i) First Option: Demonstrate Exhaustion

If Petitioner may file further papers with this Court to demonstrate that he has in 

fact exhausted the claims the Court has determined are likely unexhausted. If Petitioner 

chooses this option, his papers are due no later than March 20, 2017. Respondent may 

file a reply by April 19, 2017.

ii) Second Option: Voluntarily Dismiss the Petition

Petitioner may move to voluntarily dismiss his entire federal petition and return to 

state court to exhaust his unexhausted claims. Petitioner may then file a new federal 

petition containing only exhausted claims. See Rose v. Lundy, 455 U.S. 509, 510, 520-21 

(stating that a petitioner who files a mixed petition may dismiss his petition to “return[] to 

state court to exhaust his claims”). If Petitioner chooses this second option, he must file a 

pleading with this Court no later than March 20, 2017. Respondent may file a reply by 

April 19, 2017. 

Petitioner is cautioned that any new federal petition must be filed before expiration 

of the one-year statute of limitations. Ordinarily, a petitioner has one year from when his 

conviction became final to file his federal petition, unless he can show that statutory or 

Case 3:17-cv-00061-GPC-PCL Document 2 Filed 01/12/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 5
4

17cv0061 GPC (PCL)

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

equitable “tolling” applies. Duncan v. Walker, 533 U.S. 167, 176 (2001); 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2244(d). 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.”); Bonner v. Carey, 425 F.3d 1145, 1149 (9th Cir. 2005) (holding 

that a state application for post-conviction relief which is ultimately dismissed as 

untimely was neither “properly filed” nor “pending” while it was under consideration by 

the state court, and therefore does not toll the statute of limitations), as amended 439 F.3d 

993. However, absent some other basis for tolling, the statute of limitations continues to 

run while a federal habeas petition is pending. Duncan, 533 U.S. at 181-82.

iii) Third Option: Formally Abandon Unexhausted Claim(s)

Petitioner may formally abandon his unexhausted claims and proceed with his 

exhausted ones. See Rose, 455 U.S. at 510, 520-21 (stating that a petitioner who files a 

mixed petition may “resubmit[] the habeas petition to present only exhausted claims”). If 

Petitioner chooses this third option, he must file a pleading with this Court no later than 

March 20, 2017. Respondent may file a reply by April 19, 2017.

Petitioner is cautioned that once he abandons his unexhausted claim(s), he may 

lose the ability to ever raise it/them in federal court. See Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 

473, 488 (2000) (stating that a court’s ruling on the merits of claims presented in a first 

§ 2254 petition renders any later petition successive); see also 28 U.S.C. § 2244 (a)-(b). 

iv) Fourth Option: File a Motion to Stay the Federal Proceedings

Petitioner may file a motion to stay this federal proceeding while he returns to state 

court to exhaust his unexhausted claims. There are two methods available to Petitioner, 

the “stay and abeyance” procedure and the “withdrawal and abeyance” procedure.

If Petitioner wishes to use the “stay and abeyance” procedure he should ask the 

Court to stay his mixed petition while he returns to state court to exhaust. Under this 

Case 3:17-cv-00061-GPC-PCL Document 2 Filed 01/12/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 5
5

17cv0061 GPC (PCL)

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

procedure he must demonstrate there are arguably meritorious claims which he wishes to 

return to state court to exhaust, that he is diligently pursuing his state court remedies with 

respect to those claims, and that good cause exists for his failure to timely exhaust his 

state court remedies. Rhines v. Webber, 544 U.S. 269, 277-78 (2005). 

If Petitioner wishes to use the “withdrawal and abeyance” procedure, he must 

voluntarily withdraw his unexhausted claims, ask the Court to stay the proceedings and 

hold the fully-exhausted petition in abeyance while he returns to state court to exhaust, 

and then seek permission to amend his petition to include the newly exhausted claims

after exhaustion is complete. King v. Ryan, 564 F.3d 1133, 1141-42 (9th Cir. 2009). 

Although under this procedure Petitioner is not required to demonstrate good cause for 

his failure to timely exhaust, the newly exhausted claims must be either timely under the 

statute of limitations or “relate back” to the claims in the fully-exhausted petition, that is, 

they must share a “common core of operative facts” with the previously exhausted 

claims. Id. at 1142-43, quoting Mayle v. Felix, 545 U.S. 644. 659 (2005).

If Petitioner chooses this fourth option, he must file a pleading with this Court no 

later than March 20, 2017. Respondent may file a reply by April 19, 2017.

CONCLUSION

Accordingly, the Court DISMISSES this case without prejudice and with leave to 

amend. If Petitioner wishes to proceed with this case he must, no later than March 20, 

2017: (1) pay the $5.00 filing fee or submit adequate proof of his inability to pay the fee; 

(2) file a First Amended Petition that names a proper respondent; and (3) choose one of 

the options listed above. The Clerk of Court is directed to mail Petitioner a blank 

motion to proceed in forma pauperis form and a blank First Amended Petition form 

together with a copy of this Order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 12, 2017

Case 3:17-cv-00061-GPC-PCL Document 2 Filed 01/12/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 5 of 5