Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_06-cv-02313/USCOURTS-casd-3_06-cv-02313-0/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\Benitez\Wright--06cv2313--habeas\Pro se Order.wpd, 12116 -1-

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CALVIN WRIGHT, Civil No. 06-2313 BEN (JMA)

Petitioner,

ORDER DISMISSING CASE 

WITHOUT PREJUDICE AND WITH

LEAVE TO AMEND

v.

UNKNOWN, Warden

Respondent.

On October 16, 2006, Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed a Petition for

Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (“Petition”).

FAILURE TO SATISFY FILING FEE REQUIREMENT

Petitioner has failed to pay the $5.00 filing fee and has failed to move to proceed in

forma pauperis. 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 January 12, 2007, a copy of this Order with the $5.00

fee or with adequate proof of his inability to pay the fee. 

FAILURE TO NAME A PROPER RESPONDENT

Further, 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

Case 3:06-cv-02313-BEN-POR Document 2 Filed 12/11/06 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:\COMMON\Benitez\Wright--06cv2313--habeas\Pro se Order.wpd, 12116 -2-

Rule 2(a), 28 U.S.C. foll. § 2254). 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 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).

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 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 Secretary of the

California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. Brittingham v. United States, 982

F.2d 378, 379 (9th Cir. 1992) (per curiam).

FAILURE TO STATE A COGNIZABLE 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

Case 3:06-cv-02313-BEN-POR Document 2 Filed 12/11/06 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:\COMMON\Benitez\Wright--06cv2313--habeas\Pro se Order.wpd, 12116 -3-

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) (emphasis added). 

Here, Petitioner claims that the trial court committed prejudicial error in admitting

certain evidence, the trial court erroneously failed to give certain jury instructions. (Pet. At

6-9.) However, 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.

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 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

Case 3:06-cv-02313-BEN-POR Document 2 Filed 12/11/06 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:\COMMON\Benitez\Wright--06cv2313--habeas\Pro se Order.wpd, 12116 -4-

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).

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). 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) (emphasis added).

CONCLUSION

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

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

failed to state a cognizable federal claim. To have this case reopened, Petitioner must, no

Case 3:06-cv-02313-BEN-POR Document 2 Filed 12/11/06 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:\COMMON\Benitez\Wright--06cv2313--habeas\Pro se Order.wpd, 12116 -5-

later than January 12, 2007, (1) pay the filing fee or provide adequate proof of his inability

to pay and (2) file a First Amended Petition that cures the pleading deficiencies set forth

above. For Petitioner’s convenience, the Clerk of Court shall attach to this Order, a

blank motion to proceed in forma pauperis and a blank First Amended Petition for

Habeas Corpus form.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: December 11, 2006

Hon. Roger T. Benitez

United States District Judge

Case 3:06-cv-02313-BEN-POR Document 2 Filed 12/11/06 Page 5 of 5