Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_07-cv-02230/USCOURTS-casd-3_07-cv-02230-0/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\EVERYONE\_EFILE-PROSE\J\07cv2230dismord.wpd, 12147 -1- 07cv2230

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

BENJAMIN D. RODRIGUEZ, Civil No. 07cv2230 J (LSP)

Petitioner,

ORDER DISMISSING CASE 

WITHOUT PREJUDICE AND WITH

LEAVE TO AMEND

v.

WARDEN HERNANDEZ,

Respondent.

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

Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (West 2007).

FAILURE TO SATISFY FILING FEE REQUIREMENT

Petitioner has failed to either pay the $5.00 filing fee or move to proceed in forma

pauperis. This Court cannot proceed until Petitioner has either paid the $5.00 filing fee or

qualified to proceed in forma pauperis. See Rule 3(a), 28 U.S.C. foll. § 2254. 

FAILURE TO ALLEGE EXHAUSTION OF STATE JUDICIAL REMEDIES

Further, 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). Ordinarily, to satisfy the

exhaustion requirement, a petitioner must “fairly present[] his federal claim to the highest state

court with jurisdiction to consider it . . . or . . . demonstrate[] that no state remedy remains

Case 3:07-cv-02230-J-LSP Document 2 Filed 12/14/07 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\EVERYONE\_EFILE-PROSE\J\07cv2230dismord.wpd, 12147 -2- 07cv2230

available. Johnson v. Zenon, 88 F.3d 828, 829 (9th Cir. 1996) (citing Picard v. Connor, 404

U.S. 270, 275 (1971); Anderson v. Harless, 459 U.S. 4, 6 (1982)). 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. 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 Petition does Petitioner allege that he raised his claims in the California

Supreme Court. In fact, he specifically indicates he did not seek review in the California

Supreme Court. (See Pet. at 6-9.) If Petitioner has raised his claims in the California Supreme

Court he must so specify. 

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]

Case 3:07-cv-02230-J-LSP Document 2 Filed 12/14/07 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\EVERYONE\_EFILE-PROSE\J\07cv2230dismord.wpd, 12147 -3- 07cv2230

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 Petition that Petitioner is not presently entitled to federal

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

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the Court DISMISSES this case without prejudice and with

leave to amend. If Petitioner wishes to proceed with this case, he must, no later than February

8, 2008: (1) submit a copy of this Order together with the $5.00 fee or with adequate proof of

his inability to pay the fee AND (2) submit a First Amended Petition which cures the pleading

deficiencies outlined in this Order. THE CLERK OF COURT IS DIRECTED TO MAIL

PETITIONER A BLANK MOTION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS FORM AND

A BLANK FIRST AMENDED PETITION FORM.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: December 14, 2007

HON. NAPOLEON A. JONES, JR.

United States District Judge

Case 3:07-cv-02230-J-LSP Document 2 Filed 12/14/07 Page 3 of 3