Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_07-cv-01786/USCOURTS-casd-3_07-cv-01786-0/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- 07cv1786

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

REGINALD CRATHIN, Civil No. 07-1786 J (WMc)

Petitioner,

ORDER DISMISSING CASE 

WITHOUT PREJUDICE AND WITH

LEAVE TO AMEND

v.

UNKNOWN, 

Respondent.

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 STATE A COGNIZABLE CLAIM ON HABEAS CORPUS

Upon review of the Petition, it appears to the Court that a Petition for Writ of Habeas

Corpus brought pursuant to § 2254 is not the proper vehicle for the claims Petitioner presents.

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

Case 3:07-cv-01786-J-WMC Document 2 Filed 09/19/07 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

-2- 07cv1786

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

of his custody. Id. at 499; McIntosh v. U.S. Parole Comm’n, 115 F.3d 809, 811-12 (10th Cir.

1997).

Petitioner’s main complaint is the manner in which the order of restitution in his criminal

case is being carried out. Petitioner specifically does not challenge the validity of the restitution

order itself. (See Pet. at 1.) Petitioner’s claims are not cognizable on habeas because they do

not challenge the constitutional validity or duration of confinement. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a);

Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 480-85 (1994); Preiser, 411 U.S. at 500. “Section 2254

applies only to collateral attacks on state court judgments.” McGuire v. Blubaum, 376 F. Supp.

284, 285 (D. Ariz. 1974). In no way does Petitioner claim his state court conviction violates the

Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States. It appears that Petitioner challenges the

conditions of his prison life, but not the fact or length of his custody. 

FAILURE TO SATISFY FILING FEE REQUIREMENT

If Petitioner does seek to attack the validity of his state court conviction or the restitution

order, 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 USE THE PROPER FORM

In addition, Petitioner has failed to use the proper form. A Petition for 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 (c), 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. Presently, Petitioner has submitted

an application for writ of habeas corpus on a non-approved form. 

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. 1996) (citing Rule 2(a), 28

Case 3:07-cv-01786-J-WMC Document 2 Filed 09/19/07 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

-3- 07cv1786

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 longstanding 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 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). 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

Case 3:07-cv-01786-J-WMC Document 2 Filed 09/19/07 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

-4- 07cv1786

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. 

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 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. § 2244(d)(1)(A)-(D) (2005).

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 also 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

Case 3:07-cv-01786-J-WMC Document 2 Filed 09/19/07 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

-5- 07cv1786

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.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the Court DISMISSES this case without prejudice and with

leave to amend. If Petitioner wishes to proceed with this case as a habeas corpus petition, he

must, no later than November 5, 2007: (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 which cures the pleading

deficiencies outlined in this Order. If Petition wishes to file a civil rights complaint pursuant to

42 U.S.C. § 1983, he must file a new civil action which will be given a new civil case number.

THE CLERK OF COURT IS DIRECTED TO MAIL PETITIONER A BLANK MOTION

TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS, A BLANK FIRST AMENDED PETITION

FORM AND A BLANK CIVIL RIGHTS COMPLAINT FORM PURSUANT TO 42

U.S.C. § 1983.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: September 19, 2007

HON. NAPOLEON A. JONES, JR.

United States District Judge

cc: All Parties

Magistrate Judge McCurine

Case 3:07-cv-01786-J-WMC Document 2 Filed 09/19/07 Page 5 of 5