Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_08-cv-01747/USCOURTS-casd-3_08-cv-01747-0/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:\COMMON\CHMB_MIL\__SIGNED ORDERS\9 29 08\08cv1747_Dismiss_9 29 08.wpd, 9298 -1- 07cv0535

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

YONG BAE HONG, Civil No. 08cv1747-JM (WMc)

Petitioner,

ORDER DISMISSING CASE 

WITHOUT PREJUDICE

vs.

UNKNOWN,

Respondent.

Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has submitted a document which has been

docketed as a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, but wherein

Petitioner merely states that he requests equitable tolling of the one-year statute of limitations

applicable to federal habeas petitions. 

FAILURE TO FILE PETITION

Petitioner has not filed a Petition for writ of habeas corpus in this action. Therefore,

unless Petitioner is a capital prisoner, he has not initiated habeas proceedings in this Court.

Calderon (Nicolaus) v. United States District Court, 98 F.3d 1102, 1107 n. 3 (9th Cir. 1996)

(“Unlike non-capital prisoners who initiate habeas proceedings by filing a petition for a writ of

habeas corpus, capital prisoners commence federal habeas proceedings by filing a request for

appointment of counsel.”); McFarland v. Scott, 512 U.S. 849 (1994). 

/ / /

Case 3:08-cv-01747-JM-WMC Document 2 Filed 09/29/08 Page 1 of 3
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\CHMB_MIL\__SIGNED ORDERS\9 29 08\08cv1747_Dismiss_9 29 08.wpd, 9298 -2- 07cv0535

Petitioner does not contend that he is a capital prisoner, that is, a prisoner under sentence

of death, and there is nothing in the documents he has submitted which indicates that he is a

capital prisoner. If Petitioner wishes to proceed with a habeas action in this Court he must (as

is the case with all non-capital prisoners) file a petition for writ of habeas corpus, which will be

given a separate civil case number. However, if Petitioner is in fact a capital prisoner, he may

request the Court to re-open this action in order to permit him to file a Petition under the civil

case number assigned to this action. 

Further, the Court cautions Petitioner that a one-year period of limitation applies 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 begins to run on 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). If the federal petition is filed after the statute of

limitations has run, the petition will be summarily dismissed.

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, the filing

of a federal habeas petition does not toll the statute of limitations. Duncan v. Walker, 533 U.S.

167, 181-82 (2001).

Case 3:08-cv-01747-JM-WMC Document 2 Filed 09/29/08 Page 2 of 3
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\CHMB_MIL\__SIGNED ORDERS\9 29 08\08cv1747_Dismiss_9 29 08.wpd, 9298 -3- 07cv0535

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

This action is DISMISSED without prejudice because Petitioner has not filed a Petition

and has therefore failed to initiate federal habeas proceedings in this action. If Petitioner is a

capital prisoner he may request to have this case reopened. The Clerk of Court shall send

Petitioner a blank Southern District of California habeas petition form along with a copy of this

Order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: September 26, 2008 

 Hon. Jeffrey T. Miller

 United States District Judge

CC: ALL PARTIES

Case 3:08-cv-01747-JM-WMC Document 2 Filed 09/29/08 Page 3 of 3