Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_10-cv-02065/USCOURTS-casd-3_10-cv-02065-0/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

10cv2065

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

TONY LESSIE, Civil No. 10cv2065-IEG (RBB)

Petitioner,

ORDER GRANTING APPLICATION

TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS

AND DISMISSING PETITION

WITHOUT PREJUDICE

v.

UNKNOWN,

Respondent.

Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has submitted a Petition for a Writ of Habeas

Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, together with a request to proceed in forma pauperis. 

IN FORMA PAUPERIS APPLICATION

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 CourtGRANTS Petitioner’s

application to proceed in forma pauperis, and allows Petitioner to prosecute the above-referenced action

as a poor person without being required to prepay fees or costs and without being required to post

security.

FAILURE TO NAME A 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. OrtizSandoval 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

Case 3:10-cv-02065-IEG-RBB Document 3 Filed 10/07/10 Page 1 of 4
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

10cv2065

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). 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 failed to name a 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 Director of the California Department of Corrections and

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

EXHAUSTION OF STATE COURT REMEDIES

In addition, Petitioner has indicated that he has not presented claim three to the state supreme

court. (See Pet. at 8.) Habeas petitioners who wish to challenge either their state court conviction or

the length of their confinement in state prison, must generally 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

Case 3:10-cv-02065-IEG-RBB Document 3 Filed 10/07/10 Page 2 of 4
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

10cv2065

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 indicated that he has exhausted state judicial remedies with respect to claims

one and two, but indicates that he has not presented claim three to the state supreme court. (Pet. at 6-8.)

Petitioner contends in claim three that he was denied his right under California law with respect to the

provisions of California Welfare and Institutions Code section 707. (Pet. at 8.) Claim three as presently

phrased does not state a federal claim because Petitioner does not claim he is “in custody in violation

of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States” as a result of the violation of state law. 28

U.S.C. § 2254; see also Estelle v. McGuire, 502 U.S. 62, 70-72 (1991) (holding that federal habeas relief

is not available for state law errors which do not rise to the level of federal due process violations);

Hicks v. Oklahoma, 447 U.S. 343, 346 (1980) (holding that arbitrary deprivation ofstate law protections

can rise to the level of a federal due process violation). Petitioner is cautioned that if he wishes to

present claim three as a violation of federal due process in an amended petition, he must exhaust state

court remedies with respect to such a claim. 

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 2006).

Case 3:10-cv-02065-IEG-RBB Document 3 Filed 10/07/10 Page 3 of 4
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

10cv2065

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).

CONCLUSION

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

and DISMISSES this action without prejudice because Petitioner has failed to name a proper

respondent. To have this case reopened, Petitioner must file a First Amended Petition no later than

December 6, 2010, that cures the pleading deficiencies set forth above. The Clerk of Court shall send

Petitioner a blank Southern District of California amended petition form along with a copy of this Order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: October 7, 2010

IRMA E. GONZALEZ, Chief Judge

United States District Court

Copies to: ALL PARTIES

Case 3:10-cv-02065-IEG-RBB Document 3 Filed 10/07/10 Page 4 of 4