Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_13-cv-03161/USCOURTS-casd-3_13-cv-03161-0/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

TERRY LEWIS, Civil No. 13cv3161-LAB (WMc)

Petitioner,

ORDER DISMISSING CASE 

v. WITHOUT PREJUDICE

STATE OF CALIFORNIA,

Respondent.

On September 25, 2013, Petitioner Terry Lewis, a state prisoner proceeding pro se,

submitted a Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 to the Ninth

Circuit Court of Appeals. (ECF No. 1.) On December 23, 2013, the Petition was transferred to

this Court. (ECF No. 2.) The Petition is subject to dismissal because Petitioner has failed to pay

the $5.00 filing fee or move to proceed in forma pauperis, has failed to name a proper

respondent, and has failed to allege exhaustion of state court remedies.1

FILING FEE REQUIREMENT

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

Petitioner challenged the same conviction in a federal habeas petition in this Court in So.Dist.Ca. Civil 1

Case No. 00cv2033-IEG (NLS). Because that action was dismissed for failure to allege exhaustion of state court

remedies (see id. Doc. No. 29 at 6), the instant Petition does not appear to be considered second or successive

within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A). In re Turner, 101 F.3d 1323, 1323 (9th Cir. 1996).

C:\Users\roseanna\AppData\Local\Temp\notes1AA294\13cv3161-Dismiss.wpd, 1614 -1- 13cv3161

Case 3:13-cv-03161-LAB-JLB Document 3 Filed 01/06/14 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

Rule 3(a), 28 U.S.C. foll. § 2254. If Petitioner wishes to proceed with this case, he must submit,

no later than March 3, 2014, the $5.00 fee or adequate proof of his inability to pay the 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 [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).

Here, Petitioner has incorrectly named “State 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 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. Brittingham v. United States, 982 F.2d 378, 379

(9th Cir. 1992) (per curiam). 

C:\Users\roseanna\AppData\Local\Temp\notes1AA294\13cv3161-Dismiss.wpd, 1614 -2- 13cv3161

Case 3:13-cv-03161-LAB-JLB Document 3 Filed 01/06/14 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

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).

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

in the Petition does Petitioner allege that he raised his claim in the California Supreme Court. 

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 byState 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:\Users\roseanna\AppData\Local\Temp\notes1AA294\13cv3161-Dismiss.wpd, 1614 -3- 13cv3161

Case 3:13-cv-03161-LAB-JLB Document 3 Filed 01/06/14 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

(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).

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 not satisfied the filing fee requirement, has not named a proper Respondent,

and has not alleged exhaustion of state court remedies.

CONCLUSION

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

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

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

must file a First Amended Petition no later than March 3, 2014, that cures the pleading

deficiencies set forth above. The Clerk of Court shall send a blank Southern District of

California amended petition form and a blank Southern District of California in forma pauperis

application to Petitioner along with a copy of this Order.

/ / /

C:\Users\roseanna\AppData\Local\Temp\notes1AA294\13cv3161-Dismiss.wpd, 1614 -4- 13cv3161

Case 3:13-cv-03161-LAB-JLB Document 3 Filed 01/06/14 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

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

remedies before March 3, 2014 , and he still wishes to pursue his claim in this Court in a habeas

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

Turner, 101 F.3d at 1323.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: January 3, 2014

HONORABLE LARRY ALAN BURNS

United States District Judge

C:\Users\roseanna\AppData\Local\Temp\notes1AA294\13cv3161-Dismiss.wpd, 1614 -5- 13cv3161

Case 3:13-cv-03161-LAB-JLB Document 3 Filed 01/06/14 Page 5 of 5