Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_08-cv-00357/USCOURTS-casd-3_08-cv-00357-0/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:\COMMO N\EVERYO NE\_EFILE-PROSE\LAB\08cv0357-dismiss.wpd, 2298 -1-

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JIMMIE STEPHEN, Civil No. 08-0357 LAB (BLM)

Petitioner,

ORDER DISMISSING CASE 

v. WITHOUT PREJUDICE

HERNANDEZ, et al., Warden

Respondent.

Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed a Petition for 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. 

FAILURE TO SATISFY 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

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

no later than April 15, 2008, a copy of this Order with the $5.00 fee or with adequate proof of

his inability to pay the fee. 

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

Case 3:08-cv-00357-LAB-BLM Document 2 Filed 02/29/08 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:\COMMO N\EVERYO NE\_EFILE-PROSE\LAB\08cv0357-dismiss.wpd, 2298 -2-

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

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). 

Here, Petitioner claims that the Court erred in dismissing several of his civil rights

complaints, filed under 42 U.S.C. § 1983; and counting the dismissals as strikes under 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915(g). (See Pet. at 6, 7, 9, 11.) 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. Moreover,

Petitioner’s claims are not cognizable on habeas because the do not challenge the constitutional

validity or duration of Petitioner’s confinement. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a); Preiser v. Rodriguez,

411 U.S. 475, 500 (1973); Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 480-85 (1994). “Section 2254

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

284, 285 (D. Ariz. 1974).

FAILURE TO ALLEGE EXHAUSTION OF STATE COURT REMEDIES

Further, the Court notes that Petitioner cannot simply amend his Petition to state a federal

habeas claim and then refile the amended petition in this case. He must exhaust state judicial

remedies before bringing his claims via federal habeas. State prisoners who wish to challenge

Case 3:08-cv-00357-LAB-BLM Document 2 Filed 02/29/08 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:\COMMO N\EVERYO NE\_EFILE-PROSE\LAB\08cv0357-dismiss.wpd, 2298 -3-

their state court conviction 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. See 28 U.S.C.

§ 2254(b), (c); Granberry, 481 U.S. at 133-34. Moreover, to properly exhaust state court

judicial 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

the due process of law guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment, he must say so, not only in

federal court, but in state court.” Id. (emphasis added).

Additionally, the Court cautions Petitioner that under the Antiterrorism and Effective

Death Penalty Act of 1996 (Act), signed into law on April 24, 1996, 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) (West Supp. 2002).

/ / /

Case 3:08-cv-00357-LAB-BLM Document 2 Filed 02/29/08 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

K:\COMMO N\EVERYO NE\_EFILE-PROSE\LAB\08cv0357-dismiss.wpd, 2298 -4-

The Court also notes that 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), cert. denied, 529 U.S. 1104 (2000). 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 NAME A PROPER RESPONDENT

Finally, 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). “The ‘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).

Here, Petitioner incorrectly named “Hernandez,” “IRS,” “Rhodes,” “Lacy,” “Shear,” and

“The Attorney General of the State of California” as Respondents. None of these parties has

custody over Petitioner, who id confined at California Men’s Colony. In order for this Court to

entertain the Petition filed in this action, Petitioner must name the warden currently 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). 

CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, the Petition is DISMISSED without prejudice for failure to

satisfy the filing fee requirement, failure to state a cognizable federal habeas corpus claim,

failure to allege exhaustion of state judicial remedies and failure to name a proper respondent.

In order to have this case reopened, Petitioner must, no later than April 15, 2008, (1) either

/ / /

Case 3:08-cv-00357-LAB-BLM Document 2 Filed 02/29/08 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

K:\COMMO N\EVERYO NE\_EFILE-PROSE\LAB\08cv0357-dismiss.wpd, 2298 -5-

pay the filing fee or provide adequate proof of his inability to pay and (2) file a First Amended

Petition which curies the deficiencies discussed above. For Petitioner’s convenience, the Clerk

of Court shall attach to this Order a blank application to proceed in forma pauperis and a blank

First Amended Petition form.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: February 29, 2008

HONORABLE LARRY ALAN BURNS

United States District Judge

Case 3:08-cv-00357-LAB-BLM Document 2 Filed 02/29/08 Page 5 of 5