Mitchell v. State of California

Filing 2

ORDER DISMISSING CASE WITHOUT PREJDUICE. Signed by Judge Gonzalo P. Curiel on 7/25/2017.(All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(Copy of this Order and a blank petition form and a blank In Forma Pauperis Application were sent to Petitioner)(fth)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

MIKE E. MITCHELL,

Case No.: 17cv1204 GPC (BLM)
Petitioner,

12
13
14

ORDER DISMISSING CASE
WITHOUT PREJUDICE

v.
STATE OF CALIFORNIA,

15

Respondent.

16
17
18
19
20

Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed a Petition for Writ of
Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254.
FAILURE TO SATISFY THE FILING FEE REQUIREMENT
Petitioner has failed to pay the $5.00 filing fee and has failed to move to proceed in

21

forma pauperis. Because this Court cannot proceed until Petitioner has either paid the

22

$5.00 filing fee or qualified to proceed in forma pauperis, the Court DISMISSES the

23

case without prejudice. See Rule 3(a), 28 U.S.C. foll. § 2254. If Petitioner wishes to

24

proceed with this case, he must submit, no later than September 11, 2017, a copy of this

25

Order with the $5.00 fee or with adequate proof of his inability to pay the fee.

26

FAILURE TO NAME A PROPER RESPONDENT

27

Additionally, review of the Petition reveals that Petitioner has failed to name a

28

proper respondent. On federal habeas, a state prisoner must name the state officer having
1
17cv1204 GPC (BLM)

1

custody of him as the respondent. Ortiz-Sandoval v. Gomez, 81 F.3d 891, 894 (9th Cir.

2

1996) (citing Rule 2(a), 28 U.S.C. foll. § 2254). Federal courts lack personal jurisdiction

3

when a habeas petition fails to name a proper respondent. See id.

4

The warden is the typical respondent. However, “the rules following section 2254

5

do not specify the warden.” Id. “[T]he ‘state officer having custody’ may be ‘either the

6

warden of the institution in which the petitioner is incarcerated . . . or the chief officer in

7

charge of state penal institutions.’” Id. (quoting Rule 2(a), 28 U.S.C. foll. § 2254

8

advisory committee’s note). If “a petitioner is in custody due to the state action he is

9

challenging, ‘[t]he named respondent shall be the state officer who has official custody of

10

the petitioner (for example, the warden of the prison).’” Id. (quoting Rule 2, 28 U.S.C.

11

foll. § 2254 advisory committee’s note).

12

A long standing rule in the Ninth Circuit holds “that a petitioner may not seek [a

13

writ of] habeas corpus against the State under . . . [whose] authority . . . the petitioner is

14

in custody. The actual person who is [the] custodian [of the petitioner] must be the

15

respondent.” Ashley v. Washington, 394 F.2d 125, 126 (9th Cir. 1968). This requirement

16

exists because a writ of habeas corpus acts upon the custodian of the state prisoner, the

17

person who will produce “the body” if directed to do so by the Court. “Both the warden

18

of a California prison and the Director of Corrections for California have the power to

19

produce the prisoner.” Ortiz-Sandoval, 81 F.3d at 895.

20

Here, Petitioner has incorrectly named the “State of California,” as Respondent.

21

In order for this Court to entertain the Petition filed in this action, Petitioner must name

22

the warden in charge of the state correctional facility in which Petitioner is presently

23

confined or the Secretary of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation.

24

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

25

FAILURE TO ALLEGE EXAUSTION OF STATE JUDICIAL REMEDIES

26

Further, habeas petitioners who wish to challenge either their state court conviction or the

27

length of their confinement in state prison, must first exhaust state judicial remedies. 28

28

U.S.C. § 2254(b), (c); Granberry v. Greer, 481 U.S. 129, 133-34 (1987). To exhaust
2
17cv1204 GPC (BLM)

1

state judicial remedies, a California state prisoner must present the California Supreme

2

Court with a fair opportunity to rule on the merits of every issue raised in his or her

3

federal habeas petition. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b), (c); Granberry, 481 U.S. at 133-34.

4

Moreover, to properly exhaust state court remedies a petitioner must allege, in state court,

5

how one or more of his or her federal rights have been violated. The Supreme Court in

6

Duncan v. Henry, 513 U.S. 364 (1995) reasoned: “If state courts are to be given the

7

opportunity to correct alleged violations of prisoners’ federal rights, they must surely be

8

alerted to the fact that the prisoners are asserting claims under the United States

9

Constitution.” Id. at 365-66 (emphasis added). For example, “[i]f a habeas petitioner

10

wishes to claim that an evidentiary ruling at a state court trial denied him [or her] the due

11

process of law guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment, he [or she] must say so, not

12

only in federal court, but in state court.” Id. at 366 (emphasis added).

13

Nowhere on the Petition does Petitioner allege that he raised his claims in the

14

California Supreme Court. If Petitioner has raised his claims in the California Supreme

15

Court he must so specify. “The burden of proving that a claim has been exhausted lies

16

with the petitioner.” Matthews v. Evatt, 105 F.3d 907, 911 (4th Cir. 1997); see Breard v.

17

Pruett, 134 F.3d 615, 619 (4th Cir. 1998); Lambert v. Blackwell, 134 F.3d 506, 513 (3d

18

Cir. 1997); Oyler v. Allenbrand, 23 F.3d 292, 300 (10th Cir. 1994); Rust v. Zent, 17 F.3d

19

155, 160 (6th Cir. 1994).

20

Further, the Court cautions Petitioner that under the Antiterrorism and Effective

21

Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA) a one-year period of limitation shall apply to a

22

petition for a writ of habeas corpus by a person in custody pursuant to the judgment of a

23

State court. The limitation period shall run from the latest of:

24
25

(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;

26
27

(B) the date on which the impediment to filing an application
created by State action in violation of the Constitution or laws of

28
3
17cv1204 GPC (BLM)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

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 2006).

10

The statute of limitations does not run while a properly filed state habeas corpus

11

petition is pending. 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(2); see Nino v. Galaza, 183 F.3d 1003, 1006 (9th

12

Cir. 1999). But see Artuz v. Bennett, 531 U.S. 4, 8 (2000) (holding that “an application is

13

‘properly filed’ when its delivery and acceptance [by the appropriate court officer for

14

placement into the record] are in compliance with the applicable laws and rules governing

15

filings.”). However, absent some other basis for tolling, the statute of limitations does run

16

while a federal habeas petition is pending. Duncan v. Walker, 533 U.S. 167, 181-82 (2001).

17

Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases provides for summary dismissal

18

of a habeas petition “[i]f it plainly appears from the face of the petition and any exhibits

19

annexed to it that the petitioner is not entitled to relief in the district court . . .” Rule 4, 28

20

U.S.C. foll. § 2254. Here, it appears plain from the Petition that Petitioner is not

21

presently entitled to federal habeas relief because he has not alleged exhaustion of state

22

court remedies.

23
24

CONCLUSION
Accordingly, the Court DISMISSES the Petition without prejudice due to

25

Petitioner’s failure satisfy the filing fee requirement, failure to name a proper respondent,

26

and failure to allege exhaustion of state judicial remedies. To have this case reopened,

27

Petitioner must (1) either pay the filing fee or provide adequate proof of his inability to

28

pay and (2) file a First Amended Petition no later than September 11, 2017 in
4
17cv1204 GPC (BLM)

1

conformance with this Order. For Petitioner’s convenience, the Clerk of Court shall

2

include with this Order, a blank petition form and a blank In Forma Pauperis Application.

3
4

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: July 25, 2017

5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
5
17cv1204 GPC (BLM)