Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_08-cv-01703/USCOURTS-casd-3_08-cv-01703-0/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

K:\COMMON\EVERYONE\_EFILE-PROSE\L\08cv1703-Dismiss.wpd, 9238 -1- 08cv1703

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

TERRANCE JOHN DUMPHY, Civil No. 08cv1703-L (PCL)

Petitioner,

ORDER DISMISSING CASE 

v. WITHOUT PREJUDICE

CDC, et al.,

Respondents.

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

Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, but 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 November 22, 2008, a copy of this Order with the

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

The Petition is also subject to dismissal because Petitioner has failed to name a proper

respondent and has failed to allege exhaustion of state court remedies. 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). -“Typically, that person is the warden of the facility

in which the petitioner is incarcerated.” Id. Federal courts lack personal jurisdiction where the

petitioner fails to name a proper respondent. See id.

Case 3:08-cv-01703-L-PCL Document 2 Filed 09/23/08 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

K:\COMMON\EVERYONE\_EFILE-PROSE\L\08cv1703-Dismiss.wpd, 9238 -2- 08cv1703

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 [or she] 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 incorrectly named “CDC,” “USCD” and “SD County” as

Respondents. If Petitioner is referring to the California Department of Corrections and

Rehabilitation with his reference to “CDC,” that is insufficient. 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, not the Department itself. Brittingham v. United

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

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 3:08-cv-01703-L-PCL Document 2 Filed 09/23/08 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

K:\COMMON\EVERYONE\_EFILE-PROSE\L\08cv1703-Dismiss.wpd, 9238 -3- 08cv1703

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).

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 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 2006).

/ / /

Case 3:08-cv-01703-L-PCL Document 2 Filed 09/23/08 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

08cv1703

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 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 failed to name a proper respondent and has not alleged exhaustion of state

court remedies.

The Court also notes that Petitioner may be attempting to assert claims regarding the

conditions of his confinement rather than the duration or legality of his confinement. Challenges

to the fact or duration of confinement are properly 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, 411 U.S. at 488-500. 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;

McIntosh v. United States Parole Comm’n, 115 F.3d 809, 811-12 (10th Cir. 1997). 

CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, the Court DISMISSES this action without prejudice because

Petitioner has failed to satisfy the filing fee requirement, has failed to name a proper respondent

and has failed to allege exhaustion of state judicial remedies. To have this case reopened,

Case 3:08-cv-01703-L-PCL Document 2 Filed 09/23/08 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

08cv1703

Petitioner must satisfy the filing fee requirement and file a First Amended Petition that cures the

pleading deficiencies set forth above no later than November 22, 2008. 

Further, Petitioner is advised that if he has not alleged exhaustion of his state court

remedies before November 22, 2008, and he still wishes to pursue his claims in a habeas

petition, he will have to start over by filing a completely new habeas petition in this Court. See

In re Turner, 101 F.3d 1323 (9th Cir. 1997). The Clerk of Court shall send a blank Southern

District of California In Forma Pauperis Application, a blank Southern District of California

amended petition form, and a blank Southern District of California § 1983 Complaint form to

Petitioner along with a copy of this Order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: September 23, 2008

M. James Lorenz

United States District Court Judge

CC: ALL PARTIES

Case 3:08-cv-01703-L-PCL Document 2 Filed 09/23/08 Page 5 of 5