Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_10-cv-02117/USCOURTS-casd-3_10-cv-02117-2/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\WQH\10cv2117 dismiss SAP.wpd, 121410 -1- 10cv2117

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

STEVEN JONES, Civil No. 10cv2117-WQH (WMc)

Petitioner,

ORDER DISMISSING SECOND

AMENDED PETITION

WITHOUT PREJUDICE

v.

STATE OF CALIFORNIA, et al.,

Respondents.

On October 8, 2010, Petitioner, a person confined at Atascadero State Hospital,

proceeding pro se, submitted a two-page document titled “Mental Health Harassment” which

was docketed as a Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. On

October 27, 2010, this Court issued an Order dismissing the case for Petitioner’s failure to name

a proper respondent, failure to state grounds for relief in the petition, and failure to use a courtapproved form. Petitioner was instructed that to have this case reopened he had to file a First

Amended Petition no later than December 15, 2010. 

On November 15, 2010, Petitioner filed a First Amended Petition. By Order dated

November 23, 2010, the Court dismissed the First Amended Petition for Petitioner’s failure to

state grounds for relief in the petition, name a proper respondent, demonstrate venue is proper

in this Court, and allege exhaustion of state judicial remedies. Petitioner was instructed that to

Case 3:10-cv-02117-WQH-WMC Document 17 Filed 12/14/10 Page 1 of 6
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\WQH\10cv2117 dismiss SAP.wpd, 121410 -2- 10cv2117

have this case reopened he had to file a Second Amended Petition no later than December 15,

2010. On December 1, 2010, Petitioner filed a Second Amended Petition. 

For the following reasons, the Second Amended Petition is dismissed without prejudice.

FAILURE TO STATE GROUNDS FOR RELIEF IN PETITION

Petitioner has failed to include any claims or factual allegations in the Second Amended

Petition whatsoever. Rule 2(c) of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases states that the

petition must “specify all grounds for relief available to the petitioner [and] state the facts

supporting each ground.” Rule 2(c), 28 U.S.C. foll. § 2254. Here, Petitioner has violated Rule

2(c).

In order to satisfy Rule 2(c), Petitioner must point to a “real possibility of constitutional

error.” Cf. Blackledge v. Allison, 431 U.S. 63, 75 n.7 (1977) (internal quotation marks omitted).

Facts must be stated, in the petition, with sufficient detail to enable the Court to determine, from

the face of the petition, whether further habeas corpus review is warranted. Adams v.

Armontrout, 897 F.2d 332, 334 (8th Cir. 1990). Moreover, the allegations should be sufficiently

specific to permit the respondent to assert appropriate objections and defenses. Harris v. Allen,

739 F. Supp. 564, 565 (W.D. Okla. 1989). Here, the lack of grounds for relief in the Petition

prevents a respondent from being able to assert appropriate objections and defenses.

FAILURE TO NAME PROPER RESPONDENT

In addition, review of the Second Amended Petition reveals that Petitioner has again

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 foll. U.S.C. § 2254). “Typically, this person is the warden

of the facility in which the petitioner is incarcerated.” 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 foll. U.S.C. § 2254 advisory committee’s note).

Case 3:10-cv-02117-WQH-WMC Document 17 Filed 12/14/10 Page 2 of 6
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\WQH\10cv2117 dismiss SAP.wpd, 121410 -3- 10cv2117

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 foll. U.S.C. § 2254 advisory committee’s note). However,

if a “petitioner is on probation or parole, he may name his probation or parole officer ‘and the

official in charge of the parole or probation agency, or the state correctional agency, as

appropriate.’” Id. (quoting Rule 2, 28 foll. U.S.C. § 2254 advisory committee’s note). In some

cases, a petitioner may name the state attorney general. Id.

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 “State of California,” “California Department of

Corrections” and “Atascadero State Hospital,” as Respondents. In order for this Court to

entertain a Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus, Petitioner must name the warden or state officer

in charge of the state correctional facility in which Petitioner is presently confined. Brittingham

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

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 Atascadero State Hospital,

located in San Luis Obispo County, which is within the jurisdictional boundaries of the United

States District Court for the Central District of California, Western Division. See 28 U.S.C.

§ 84(c)(2). Petitioner again states that the state court conviction he is challenging occurred in

Case 3:10-cv-02117-WQH-WMC Document 17 Filed 12/14/10 Page 3 of 6
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\WQH\10cv2117 dismiss SAP.wpd, 121410 -4- 10cv2117

the San Diego Superior Court, which is within the jurisdictional boundaries of the United States

District Court for the Southern District of California, and that he is challenging a conviction that

occurred in the San Luis Obispo Superior Court, which is within the jurisdictional boundaries

of the United States District Court for the Central District of California, Western Division. See

28 U.S.C. § 84(c)-(d). Thus, it is currently unclear whether this Court has jurisdiction in this

matter. Petitioner must tell the Court where he suffered the conviction which he seeks to

challenge in this matter.

FAILURE TO ALLEGE EXHAUSTION OF STATE JUDICIAL REMEDIES

Finally, 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 Second Amended 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 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).

Case 3:10-cv-02117-WQH-WMC Document 17 Filed 12/14/10 Page 4 of 6
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\WQH\10cv2117 dismiss SAP.wpd, 121410 -5- 10cv2117

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).

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 Second Amended Petition that Petitioner is not presently

entitled to federal habeas relief because he has not alleged exhaustion of state court remedies.

//

//

Case 3:10-cv-02117-WQH-WMC Document 17 Filed 12/14/10 Page 5 of 6
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\WQH\10cv2117 dismiss SAP.wpd, 121410 -6- 10cv2117

CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, the Court DISMISSES this case without prejudice due to

Petitioner’s failure to state grounds for relief, failure to name a proper respondent, failure to

demonstrate that venue is proper in this Court, and failure to allege exhaustion of state judicial

remedies in the Second Amended Petition. To proceed with this case, Petitioner must, no later

than January 31, 2010, file a Third Amended Petition which cures the pleading deficiencies

outlined in this Order. If Petitioner’s Third Amended Petition does not cure the pleading

deficiencies outlined in this Order, Petitioner is advised that the Court will dismiss his petition

without prejudice but without further leave to amend. THE CLERK OF COURT IS

DIRECTED TO MAIL PETITIONER A BLANK THIRD AMENDED PETITION FORM

TOGETHER WITH A COPY OF THIS ORDER.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: December 14, 2010

WILLIAM Q. HAYES

United States District Judge

Case 3:10-cv-02117-WQH-WMC Document 17 Filed 12/14/10 Page 6 of 6