Gonzalez v. Unknown

Filing 4

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Gregory G. Hollows on 9/8/11 ORDERING that the petition 1 is DISMISSED with leave to amend within twenty-eight days; Petitioner shall also submit, within twenty-eight days from the date of this order, an affidavit i n support of his request to proceed in forma pauperis or the appropriate filing fee; Petitioner's faiure to comply with this order will result in the dismissal of this action; The Clerk is directed to send Petitioner a copy of the form for filing a 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition and a copy of the in forma pauperis form used by this district.(Mena-Sanchez, L)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 FRANCISCO GONZALEZ, Petitioner, 11 12 13 No. CIV-11-2121 GGH P vs. MCHAEL MARTEL, Warden, Respondent.1 14 ORDER / 15 16 Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has purported to file an application 17 for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Petitioner has not, however, filed an 18 in forma pauperis affidavit or paid the required filing fee ($5.00). See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1914(a); 19 1915(a). Petitioner will be provided the opportunity to either submit the appropriate affidavit in 20 support of a request to proceed in forma pauperis or submit the appropriate filing fee. Petitioner states that he is currently incarcerated for a D.U.I. for which he was 21 22 “A petitioner for habeas corpus relief must name the state officer having custody of him or her as the respondent to the petition. This person typically is the warden of the facility in which the petitioner is incarcerated. Brittingham v. United States, 982 F.2d 378, 379 (9th Cir.1992).” Stanley v. California Supreme Court, 21 F.3d 359, 360 (9th Cir. 1994) (citing Rule 2(a), 28 U.S.C. foll. § 2254). “Failure to name the petitioner’s custodian as a respondent deprives federal courts of personal jurisdiction. Id.; Dunne v. Henman, 875 F.2d 244, 249 (9th Cir.1989).” Stanley, supra, at 360. In the instant action, petitioner has failed to identify a respondent; therefore, the court has named the warden of petitioner’s current place of incarceration as respondent. 1 23 24 25 26 1 1 sentenced to sixteen months ½ time on May 31, 2011. Petition, p. 2. Petitioner expects to be 2 released on October 8, 2011. Id. Petitioner also states he is under an INS hold. Id. 3 [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. 4 5 6 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a). Petitioner does not appear to be challenging any state court sentence or conviction 7 8 for which he is in custody, although he represents that he is serving a sentence for a D.U.I. 9 conviction. Petitioner instead seeks to challenge an INS hold which he blames both for his 10 present incarceration and for a future deportation to Mexico. Petition, p. 3. Petitioner ends his 11 petition saying that all he wants is help and freedom “but no Mexico.” Id., at 6. Federal district 12 court jurisdiction to hear a habeas corpus challenge to an administrative decision relating to a 13 removal order has been curtailed by section 106(a) of the REAL ID Act. See 8 U.S.C. § 14 1252(a)(5). This petition must be dismissed. To the extent petitioner wishes to challenge the constitutionality of his state court 15 16 D.U.I. conviction and/or sentence, petitioner may amend the petition although it appears that 17 petitioner has not exhausted his state court remedies and the exhaustion of state court remedies is 18 a prerequisite to the granting of a petition for writ of habeas corpus. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(1). If 19 exhaustion is to be waived, it must be waived explicitly by respondent’s counsel. 28 U.S.C. § 20 2254(b)(3).2 A waiver of exhaustion, thus, may not be implied or inferred. A petitioner satisfies 21 the exhaustion requirement by providing the highest state court with a full and fair opportunity to 22 consider all claims before presenting them to the federal court. Picard v. Connor, 404 U.S. 270, 23 276 (1971); Middleton v. Cupp, 768 F.2d 1083, 1086 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 478 U.S. 1021 24 25 A petition may be denied on the merits without exhaustion of state court remedies. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(2). 2 26 2 1 (1986).3 2 In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 3 1. The petition is dismissed with leave to amend within twenty-eight days; 4 2. Petitioner shall also submit, within twenty-eight days from the date of this 5 order, an affidavit in support of his request to proceed in forma pauperis or the appropriate filing 6 fee; 3. Petitioner’s failure to comply with this order will result in the dismissal of this 7 8 action; and 4. The Clerk of the Court is directed to send petitioner a copy of the form for 9 10 filing a 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition and a copy of the in forma pauperis form used by this district. 11 DATED: September 8, 2011 /s/ Gregory G. Hollows UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 12 13 14 15 GGH:009 gonz2121.ord 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Petitioner is cautioned that the habeas corpus statute imposes a one year statute of limitations for filing non-capital habeas corpus petitions in federal court. In most cases, the one year period will start to run on the date on which the state court judgment became final by the conclusion of direct review or the expiration of time for seeking direct review, although the statute of limitations is tolled while a properly filed application for state post-conviction or other collateral review is pending. 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d). 3 24 25 26 3

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?