Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-00728/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-00728-0/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MARIO MADRID, Civil

No.

16cv0728-BTM (MDD)

Petitioner,

ORDER DISMISSING CASE 

v. WITHOUT PREJUDICE

PEOPLE OF CALIFORNIA,

Respondent.

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

Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The Petition is subject to dismissal

without prejudice because Petitioner has failed to satisfy the filing fee requirement, failed

to use a court-approved petition form, failed to name a proper Respondent, and failed to

allege exhaustion of state court remedies.

FILING FEE REQUIREMENT

Petitioner has failed to pay the $5.00 filing fee and has failed to move to proceed

in forma pauperis. Because this Court cannot proceed until Petitioner has either paid the

$5.00 filing fee or qualified to proceed in forma pauperis, the Court DISMISSES the

case without prejudice. See Rule 3(a), 28 U.S.C. foll. § 2254. If Petitioner wishes to

proceed with this case, he must submit, no later than May 31, 2016, a copy of this

Order with the $5.00 fee or with adequate proof of his inability to pay the fee. 

I:\Everyone\_EFILE-PROSE\BTM\16cv0728-Dismiss.wpd, 4516 -1- 16cv0728

Case 3:16-cv-00728-BTM-MDD Document 2 Filed 04/05/16 Page 1 of 5
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 USE PROPER FORM

A Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus must be submitted in accordance with the

Local Rules of the United States District Court for the Southern District of California. 

See Rule 2(d), 28 U.S.C. foll. § 2254. In order to comply with the Local Rules, the

petition must be submitted upon a court-approved form and in accordance with the

instructions approved by the Court. Id.; S. D. CAL. CIVLR HC.2(b). Petitioner has

submitted his application for writ of habeas corpus (ECF No. 1 at 9-15) attached to a

court-approved form which he has left blank other than the first page. (Id. at 1-8.) In

order to proceed with this matter, Petitioner must file a First Amended Petition using a

court-approved form. 

FAILURE TO NAME 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.

1996) (citing Rule 2(a), 28 U.S.C. foll. § 2254). “Typically, that person is the warden

of the facility in which the petitioner is incarcerated.” Id. Federal courts lack personal

jurisdiction when a habeas petition fails to name a proper respondent. See id.

The warden isthe typicalrespondent. 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).

Petitioner has incorrectly named “People of California,” as Respondent. 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

I:\Everyone\_EFILE-PROSE\BTM\16cv0728-Dismiss.wpd, 4516 -2- 16cv0728

Case 3:16-cv-00728-BTM-MDD Document 2 Filed 04/05/16 Page 2 of 5
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

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 or the Director 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 OF STATE JUDICIAL REMEDIES

Finally, 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, theymust 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).

/ / /

I:\Everyone\_EFILE-PROSE\BTM\16cv0728-Dismiss.wpd, 4516 -3- 16cv0728

Case 3:16-cv-00728-BTM-MDD Document 2 Filed 04/05/16 Page 3 of 5
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

Here, Petitioner has not indicated that he has exhausted state judicial remedies.

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. The burden of pleading that a claim has been exhausted lies with the

petitioner. Cartwright v. Cupp, 650 F.2d 1103, 1104 (9th Cir. 1981).

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:

(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

wasinitially 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 2006).

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).

/ / /

I:\Everyone\_EFILE-PROSE\BTM\16cv0728-Dismiss.wpd, 4516 -4- 16cv0728

Case 3:16-cv-00728-BTM-MDD Document 2 Filed 04/05/16 Page 4 of 5
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

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases provides for summary

dismissal of a habeas petition “[i]f it plainly appearsfromthe face of the petition and any

attached exhibits 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 satisfied the filing fee

requirement, has not used a court-approved petition form, has not named a proper

Respondent, and has not alleged exhaustion of state court remedies. 

Based on the foregoing, the Court DISMISSES this action without prejudice. To

have this case reopened, Petitioner must either pay the filing fee or file an application to

proceed in forma pauperis and file a First Amended Petition which cures the defects of

pleading identified above no later than May 31, 2016. The Clerk of Court shall send

Petitioner a blank Southern District of California First Amended Petition form and a

blank Southern District of California in forma pauperis application along with a copy of

this Order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: April 5, 2016

BARRY TED MOSKOWITZ, Chief Judge

United States District Court

CC: ALL PARTIES

I:\Everyone\_EFILE-PROSE\BTM\16cv0728-Dismiss.wpd, 4516 -5- 16cv0728

Case 3:16-cv-00728-BTM-MDD Document 2 Filed 04/05/16 Page 5 of 5