Crooks v. Ignoramis

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 WILLIAM GRANT CROOKS, Case No.: 3:20-cv-0407-LAB-RBM

12 Petitioner, ORDER DISMISSING FIRST 13 v. AMENDED PETITION WITHOUT PREJUDICE 14 JENEAN WALLACE, CEO and OSTERTAG, 15 Respondents. 16

17 18 On March 2, 2020, Petitioner, a civil detainee proceeding pro se, filed a Petition 19 for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, in which he appeared to be 20 challenging his continued involuntary commitment to Patton State Hospital, after being 21 found not guilty by reason of insanity in 1982. (See Pet., ECF No. 1.) On March 4, 22 2020, the Court dismissed the case without prejudice because Petitioner failed to satisfy 23 the filing fee requirement, failed to state a cognizable claim and failed to name a proper 24 respondent. (ECF No. 2.) Petitioner was instructed that to have this case reopened he 25 had to (1) either pay the filing fee or provide adequate proof of his inability to pay and (2) 26 file a First Amended Petition, no later than May 8, 2020. (Id.) On April 1, 2020, 27 Petitioner paid the $5.00 filing fee and filed a First Amended Petition, pursuant to this 28 Court’s Order. (ECF Nos. 3 & 4.) 1 FAILURE TO STATE A COGNIZABLE CLAIM 2 The First Amended Petition must be dismissed because Petitioner has again failed 3 to allege that his civil detention violates the Constitution of the United States. As 4 discussed in this Court’s previous Order, Title 28, United States Code, § 2254(a), sets 5 forth the following scope of review for federal habeas corpus claims: 6 The Supreme Court, a Justice thereof, a circuit judge, or a district court shall entertain an application for a writ of habeas 7 corpus in behalf of a person in custody pursuant to the 8 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 9 United States. 10 11 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a) (emphasis added). See Hernandez v. Ylst, 930 F.2d 714, 719 (9th 12 Cir. 1991); Mannhalt v. Reed, 847 F.2d 576, 579 (9th Cir. 1988); Kealohapauole v. 13 Shimoda, 800 F.2d 1463, 1464-65 (9th Cir. 1986). Thus, to present a cognizable federal 14 habeas corpus claim under § 2254, a state prisoner or civil detainee must allege both that 15 he is in custody pursuant to a “judgment of a State court,” and that he is in custody in 16 “violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.” See 28 U.S.C. § 17 2254(a). 18 Here, to the extent the Court can discern the claims presented in the First Amended 19 Petition, Petitioner appears to allege that his civil commitment is improper because he 20 “never assaulted a brother is [his] life” and “never heard voices or seen visions [sic] in his 21 life.” (Am. Pet., ECF No. 3 at 13.) In no way, however, does Petitioner claim he is “in 22 custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.” 28 23 U.S.C. § 2254. 24 Further, the Court notes that Petitioner cannot simply amend his petition to state a 25 federal habeas claim and then refile a second amended petition in this case. He must first 26 exhaust state judicial remedies before bringing his claims via federal habeas. State 27 prisoners who wish to challenge their state court conviction must first exhaust state 28 judicial remedies. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b), (c); Granberry v. Greer, 481 U.S. 129, 133-34 1 (1987). To exhaust state judicial remedies, a California state prisoner must present the 2 California Supreme Court with a fair opportunity to rule on the merits of every issue 3 raised in his or her federal habeas petition. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b), (c); Granberry, 481 4 U.S. at 133-34. Moreover, to properly exhaust state court judicial remedies a petitioner 5 must allege, in state court, how one or more of his or her federal rights have been 6 violated. The Supreme Court in Duncan v. Henry, 513 U.S. 364 (1995) reasoned: “If 7 state courts are to be given the opportunity to correct alleged violations of prisoners’ 8 federal rights, they must surely be alerted to the fact that the prisoners are asserting 9 claims under the United States Constitution.” Id. at 365-66 (emphasis added). For 10 example, “[i]f a habeas petitioner wishes to claim that an evidentiary ruling at a state 11 court trial denied him the due process of law guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment, 12 he must say so, not only in federal court, but in state court.” Id. (emphasis added). 13 Additionally, the Court cautions Petitioner that under the Antiterrorism and 14 Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, a one-year period of limitation shall apply to a 15 petition for a writ of habeas corpus by a person in custody pursuant to the judgment of a 16 State court. The limitation period shall run from the latest of: 17 (A) the date on which the judgment became final by the conclusion of direct review or the expiration of the time for 18 seeking such review; 19 (B) the date on which the impediment to filing an 20 application created by State action in violation of the 21 Constitution or laws of the United States is removed, if the applicant was prevented from filing by such State action; 22

23 (C) the date on which the constitutional right asserted was initially recognized by the Supreme Court, if the right has 24 been newly recognized by the Supreme Court and made 25 retroactively applicable to cases on collateral review; or

27 / / / 28 / / / 1 (D) the date on which the factual predicate of the claim or claims presented could have been discovered through the exercise of due diligence. 3 4 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1)(A)-(D) (West Supp. 2002). 5 The Court also notes that the statute of limitations does not run while a properly 6 || filed state habeas corpus petition is pending. 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(2); see Nino v. Galaza, 7 || 183 F.3d 1003, 1006 (9th Cir. 1999). But see Artuz v. Bennett, 531 U.S. 4, 8 (2000) 8 || (holding that “an application is “properly filed’ when its delivery and acceptance [by the 9 || appropriate court officer for placement into the record] are in compliance with the 10 || applicable laws and rules governing filings.”). However, absent some other basis for 11 tolling, the statute of limitations does run while a federal habeas petition is pending. 12 || Duncan vy. Walker, 533 U.S. 167, 181-82 (2001). 13 CONCLUSION 14 Based on the foregoing, the Court DISMISSES the First Amended Petition 15 || without prejudice because Petitioner has failed a cognizable federal claim. To have this 16 reopened, Petitioner file a Second Amended Petition that cures the pleading 17 deficiencies set forth above no later than May 16, 2020. 18 IT IS SO ORDERED. 19 || Dated: April 8, 2020 / 2 / 4 . ‘Z, i Vy 20 Lafry Alan Burns 1 United States District Judge 22 23 24 25 26 27 28