Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_10-cv-01026/USCOURTS-casd-3_10-cv-01026-0/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\DMS\10cv1026_dismiss.wpd, 51810 -1- 10cv1026

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JAMES LYNN O’HINES, Civil No. 10-1026 DMS (WMc)

Petitioner,

ORDER DISMISSING CASE 

WITHOUT PREJUDICE AND WITH

LEAVE TO AMEND

v.

CALIFORNIA CORRECTIONAL PEACE

OFFICER ASSOCIATION, et al.,

Respondents.

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. 

VENUE

A petition for writ of habeas corpus may be filed in the United States District Court of

either the judicial district in which the petitioner is presently confined or the judicial district in

which he was convicted and sentenced. See 28 U.S.C. § 2241(d); Braden v. 30th Judicial

Circuit Court, 410 U.S. 484, 497 (1973). Petitioner is presently confined at the Arizona State

Prison Complex in Florence, Arizona. It is unclear from the petition where Petitioner’s state

Case 3:10-cv-01026-DMS-WMC Document 2 Filed 05/18/10 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\DMS\10cv1026_dismiss.wpd, 51810 -2- 10cv1026

court conviction occurred. When a habeas petitioner is challenging a state court conviction, the

district court of the district in which the state court conviction took place is a more convenient

forum because of the accessibility of evidence, records and witnesses. Petitioner is advised that

if he files a First Amended Petition in this case, he must specify where the state court conviction

which he is challenging took place.

FAILURE TO USE PROPER FORM

Additionally, 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 nonapproved form. 

FAILURE TO NAME PROPER RESPONDENT

Review of the Petition also 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). 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.

Case 3:10-cv-01026-DMS-WMC Document 2 Filed 05/18/10 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\DMS\10cv1026_dismiss.wpd, 51810 -3- 10cv1026

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 “California Correctional Peace Officer

Association” and “Peace Officer Association Union” as Respondents. 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). 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) (citing Picard v. Connor, 404

U.S. 270, 275 (1971); Anderson v. Harless, 459 U.S. 4, 6 (1982)). 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. 

/ / /

Case 3:10-cv-01026-DMS-WMC Document 2 Filed 05/18/10 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

K:\COMMON\EVERYONE\_EFILE-PROSE\DMS\10cv1026_dismiss.wpd, 51810 -4- 10cv1026

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 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).

FAILURE TO STATE A COGNIZABLE FEDERAL CLAIM 

Additionally, in accordance with Rule 4 of the rules governing § 2254 cases, Petitioner

has failed to allege that his state court conviction or sentence violates the Constitution of the

United States.

Title 28, United States Code, § 2254(a), sets forth the following scope of review for

federal habeas corpus claims:

The Supreme Court, a Justice thereof, a circuit judge, or a district

court shall entertain an application for a writ of habeas corpus in

Case 3:10-cv-01026-DMS-WMC Document 2 Filed 05/18/10 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

K:\COMMON\EVERYONE\_EFILE-PROSE\DMS\10cv1026_dismiss.wpd, 51810 -5- 10cv1026

behalf of a person in custody pursuant to the judgment of a State

court only on the ground that he is in custody in violation of the

Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.

28 U.S.C. § 2254(a) (emphasis added). See Hernandez v. Ylst, 930 F.2d 714, 719 (9th Cir.

1991); Mannhalt v. Reed, 847 F.2d 576, 579 (9th Cir. 1988); Kealohapauole v. Shimoda, 800

F.2d 1463, 1464-65 (9th Cir. 1986). Thus, to present a cognizable federal habeas corpus claim

under § 2254, a state prisoner must allege both that he is in custody pursuant to a “judgment of

a State court,” and that he is in custody in “violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the

United States.” See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a). 

The petition in the present case is largely incomprehensible. In no way does Petitioner

claim he is “in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.”

28 U.S.C. § 2254.

CONCLUSION

For all the foregoing reasons, 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 July 20,

2010: (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.

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: May 18, 2010

HON. DANA M. SABRAW

United States District Judge

Case 3:10-cv-01026-DMS-WMC Document 2 Filed 05/18/10 Page 5 of 5