Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-02516/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-02516-0/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

17cv2516-AJB (BGS)

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

JOSE G. VELAZQUEZ,

Petitioner,

v.

SUPERIOR COURT,

Respondent.

Case No.: 17cv2516-AJB (BGS)

ORDER DISMISSING PETITION 

WITHOUT PREJUDIE AND 

NOTIFYING PETITIONER OF 

OPTIONS TO AVOID FUTURE 

DISMISSAL

On November 17, 2017, Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed a Petition 

for a Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 in the District Court for the 

Central District of California. (ECF No. 1.) On December 18, 2017, the Petition was 

transferred to this Court because Petitioner is challenging a conviction from the San Diego 

County Superior Court. (ECF No. 4.) Petitioner filed a Motion to Proceed In Forma 

Pauperis on January 8, 2018.

MOTION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS

According to Petitioner’s prison trust account statement, Petitioner has no funds on 

account at the California correctional institution in which he is presently confined. 

Petitioner cannot afford the $5.00 filing fee. Thus, the Court GRANTS Petitioner’s 

application to proceed in forma pauperis, and allows Petitioner to prosecute the abovereferenced action as a poor person without being required to prepay fees or costs and 

Case 3:17-cv-02516-AJB-BGS Document 10 Filed 01/11/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 5
2

17cv2516-AJB (BGS)

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

without being required to post security. The Clerk of the Court will file the Petition for 

Writ of Habeas Corpus without prepayment of the filing fee.

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 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 incorrectly named “Superior Court” as 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 

Case 3:17-cv-02516-AJB-BGS Document 10 Filed 01/11/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 5
3

17cv2516-AJB (BGS)

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

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

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 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. In fact, he specifically indicates he did not seek review in the 

California Supreme Court. (See Pet. at 2-3.) If Petitioner has raised his claims in the 

California Supreme Court he must so specify. “The burden of proving that a claim has

been exhausted lies with the petitioner.” Matthews v. Evatt, 105 F.3d 907, 911 (4th Cir. 

1997); see Breard v. Pruett, 134 F.3d 615, 619 (4th Cir. 1998); Lambert v. Blackwell, 134 

F.3d 506, 513 (3d Cir. 1997); Oyler v. Allenbrand, 23 F.3d 292, 300 (10th Cir. 1994); Rust 

v. Zent, 17 F.3d 155, 160 (6th Cir. 1994).

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 

Case 3:17-cv-02516-AJB-BGS Document 10 Filed 01/11/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 5
4

17cv2516-AJB (BGS)

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

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) (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).

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.

Case 3:17-cv-02516-AJB-BGS Document 10 Filed 01/11/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 5
5

17cv2516-AJB (BGS)

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

Based on the foregoing, the Court GRANTS Petitioner’s request to proceed in forma 

pauperis and DISMISSES this action without prejudice because Petitioner has failed to 

name a proper respondent, and failed to allege exhaustion of state judicial remedies. To 

have this case reopened, Petitioner must submit, no later than March 12, 2018, file a First 

Amended Petition which cures the pleading deficiencies outlined above. The Clerk of 

Court shall send a a blank Southern District of California amended petition form to 

Petitioner along with a copy of this Order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 11, 2018

Case 3:17-cv-02516-AJB-BGS Document 10 Filed 01/11/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 5 of 5