Faustino-Anaya v. State of Washington

• Court: District Court, E.D. Washington
• Decided: August 28, 2023
• Docket: 4:23-cv-05117
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2

3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 5

6 ARNULFO FAUSTINO-ANAYA, NO: 4:23-CV-5117-TOR 7 Petitioner, ORDER DISMISSING PETITION 8 v. WITHOUT PREJUDICE, ETC.

9 STATE OF WASHINGTON,

10 Respondent.

11 Petitioner, a pro se prisoner at the Coyote Ridge Corrections Center, seeks a 12 Writ of Habeas Corpus, in forma pauperis status, and a Stay and Abeyance order, 13 along with other relief. ECF Nos. 1 through 6, and 8. 14 SUMMARY DISMISSAL 15 Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases provides for the summary 16 dismissal of a habeas petition “[i]f it plainly appears from the face of the petition and 17 any exhibits annexed to it that the petitioner is not entitled to relief in the district 18 court.” Here, it is abundantly clear that Petitioner is not entitled to federal habeas 19 relief at this time. 20 1 WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS 2 Petitioner challenges his convictions for two counts of Rape of a Child in the

3 Second Degree. Petitioner admits that he has not exhausted his state court remedies 4 and therefore asks for an order of stay and abeyance. 5 According to 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(1)(A) “An application for a writ of habeas

6 corpus on behalf of a person in custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court 7 shall not be granted unless it appears that—[ ] the applicant has exhausted the 8 remedies available in the courts of the State”. See also Rose v. Lundy, 455 U.S. 509 9 (1982) and Rhines v. Weber, 544 U.S. 269 (2005). Here, Petitioner has not exhausted

10 his state court remedies and there is no justifiable reason to stay this case and hold 11 it in abeyance. 12 IMPROPER RESPONDENT

13 Petitioner did not name a proper party as Respondent to this action. A 14 petitioner for habeas corpus relief must name the state officer having custody of him 15 as the respondent to the petition. Rule 2(a), Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in 16 the United States District Courts; Stanley v. California Supreme Court, 21 F.3d 359,

17 360 (9th Cir. 1994). This person is typically the warden of the facility in which the 18 petitioner is incarcerated. See also Brittingham v. United States, 982 F.2d 378, 379 19 (9th Cir. 1992).

20 l Failure to name the petitioner’s custodian as a respondent deprives federal courts of personal jurisdiction. [d.; Dunne v. Henman, 875 F.2d 244, 249 (9th Cir. 1989). 4 ACCORDINGLY, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 5 1. The Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, ECF No. 1, is DISMISSED 6 without prejudice. 7 2. Petitioner’s Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis, ECF No. 2, is 8 DENIED as moot. 9 3. Petitioner’s Motion: Designation of Records, ECF No. 3, is DENIED as 10 moot. 11 4. Petitioner’s Motion Stay and Abeyance, ECF No. 4, is DENIED. 12 5. Petitioner’s Motion Show Cause, ECF No. 6, is DENIED as moot. 13 6. Petitioner’s Motion Clerk Action, ECF No. 8, is DENIED as moot. 14 7. The Court further certifies that there is no basis upon which to issue a 15 certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c); Fed. R. App. P. 22(b). 16 The Clerk of Court shall enter this Order, enter judgment, provide copies to Petitioner, and CLOSE the file. 18 DATED August 28, 2023.

20 Oe □ Ks ~~ THOMAS O. RICE > United States District Judge