Lerman v. Unknown

Filing 2

ORDER DISMISSING Petition without Prejudice. To have this case reopened, Petitioner must, no later December 4, 2017 file a First Amended Petition. Signed by Judge Roger T. Benitez on 10/2/2017.(Sent form to Petitioner) (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(knb)

I

1

F! L SO

2

If OCT-4 AH Ms It I

3

tilRX- U.S. SI’ TRSCT fiOURT
i i K'RK <d'r e*hH>IWA

4
5

ft y-

JD)'

DiftiM

6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

DAVID LERMA,

Case No. 17cvl925 BEN (RBB)
Petitioner,

12
13

v.

14

ORDER DISMISSING PETITION
WITHOUT PREJUDICE

UNKNOWN, Warden,

15

Respondent.

16

17
18
19
20

Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed a petition for writ of habeas
corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 and paid the requisite filing fee.
FAILURE TO NAME A PROPER RESPONDENT
Review of the Petition reveals that Petitioner has failed to name a proper

21

respondent. On federal habeas, a state prisoner must name the state officer having

22

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

23

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

24

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

25

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

26

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

27

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

28

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

17r.v19?.S RFN fRRRT

1

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

2

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

3

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

4

foil. § 2254 advisory committee’s note).

5

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

6

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

7

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

8

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

9

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

10

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

11

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

12

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

13

Here, Petitioner has failed to name a Respondent. In order for this Court to

14

entertain the Petition filed in this action, Petitioner must name the warden in charge of the

15

state correctional facility in which Petitioner is presently confined or the Secretary of the

16

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

17

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

18
19

FAILURE TO ALLEGE EXHAUSTION OF STATE JUDICIAL REMEDIES
Further, habeas petitioners who wish to challenge either their state court conviction

20

or the length of their confinement in state prison, must first exhaust state judicial

21

remedies. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b), (c); Granberryv. Greer, 481 U.S. 129, 133-34 (1987).

22

To exhaust state judicial remedies, a California state prisoner must present the California

23

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

24

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

25

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

26

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

27

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

28

opportunity to correct alleged violations of prisoners’ federal rights, they must surely be
2
17r.v1075 RFN ('RRR'I

1

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

2

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

3

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

4

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

5

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

6

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

7

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

8

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

9

California Supreme Court he must so specify. “The burden of proving that a claim has

10

been exhausted lies with the petitioner.” Matthews v. Evatt, 105 F.3d 907, 911 (4th Cir.

11

1997); see Breard v. Pruett, 134 F.3d 615, 619 (4th Cir. 1998); Lambert v. Blackwell,

12

134 F.3d 506, 513 (3d Cir. 1997); Oyler v. Allenbrand, 23 F.3d 292, 300 (10th Cir.

13

1994); Rustv. Zent, 17 F.3d 155, 160 (6th Cir. 1994).
Further, the Court cautions Petitioner that under the Antiterrorism and Effective

14
15

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

16

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

17

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;

18
19
20

(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;

21
22
23

(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

24
25
26
27
28

III
3
17r.v1

RF.N fRRFR

(D) the date on which the factual predicate of the claim or claims
presented could have been discovered through the exercise of
due diligence.

1
2
3
4

28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)( 1 )(A)-(D) (West 2006).

5

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

6

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

7

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

8

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

9

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

10

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

11

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

12

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

13

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

14

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

15

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

16

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

17

remedies.

18

CONCLUSION

19

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

20

because Petitioner has failed to name a proper respondent and failed to state a cognizable

21

federal claim. To have this case reopened, Petitioner must, no later December 4.2017.

22

file a First Amended Petition that cures the pleading deficiencies set forth above. A

23

blank First Amended Petition is included with this OrderTSr Petitioner’s convenience.

24

IT IS SO ORDERED

25

Dated:

r

Hon^Roger T. Benite^
United States District Judge

26
27
28
4

17r.v1Q?S RF.NfRRRl