1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 10 11 JOAQUIN FLORES, ) Case No.: 1:24-cv-00444-SKO (HC) ) 12 Petitioner, ) ORDER DISMISSING PETITION WITH LEAVE ) TO FILE A FIRST AMENDED PETITION 13 v. ) ) [THIRTY DAY DEADLINE] 14 ) 15 THE PEOPLE, ) ) 16 Respondent. ) ) 17 18 Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with a petition for writ of 19 habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. A preliminary screening of the petition reveals that the 20 petition fails to name a proper respondent, fails to demonstrate exhaustion of state remedies, and fails 21 to present cognizable grounds for relief. Therefore, the Court will DISMISS the petition with leave to 22 file an amended petition. 23 I. DISCUSSION 24 A. Preliminary Review of Petition 25 Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases requires the Court to make a preliminary 26 review of each petition for writ of habeas corpus. The Court must summarily dismiss a petition “[i]f it 27 plainly appears from the petition and any attached exhibits that the petitioner is not entitled to relief in 28 the district court . . . .” Rule 4; O’Bremski v. Maass, 915 F.2d 418, 420 (9th Cir. 1990). The Advisory 1 Committee Notes to Rule 8 indicate that the Court may dismiss a petition for writ of habeas corpus, 2 either on its own motion under Rule 4, pursuant to the respondent’s motion to dismiss, or after an 3 answer to the petition has been filed. 4 B. Failure to Name a Proper Respondent 5 Petitioner names “The People” as Respondent. A petitioner seeking habeas corpus relief under 6 28 U.S.C. § 2254 must name the state officer having custody of him as the respondent to the petition. 7 Rule 2 (a) of the Rules Governing § 2254 Cases; Ortiz-Sandoval v. Gomez, 81 F.3d 891, 894 (9th Cir. 8 1996); Stanley v. California Supreme Court, 21 F.3d 359, 360 (9th Cir. 1994). Normally, the person 9 having custody of an incarcerated petitioner is the warden of the prison in which the petitioner is 10 incarcerated because the warden has "day-to-day control over" the petitioner. Brittingham v. United 11 States, 982 F.2d 378, 379 (9th Cir. 1992); see also Stanley, 21 F.3d at 360. However, the chief officer 12 in charge of state penal institutions is also appropriate. Ortiz, 81 F.3d at 894; Stanley, 21 F.3d at 360. 13 Petitioner’s failure to name a proper respondent requires dismissal of his habeas petition for 14 lack of jurisdiction. Stanley, 21 F.3d at 360; Olson v. California Adult Auth., 423 F.2d 1326, 1326 15 (9th Cir. 1970); see also Billiteri v. United States Bd. Of Parole, 541 F.2d 938, 948 (2nd Cir. 1976). 16 However, the Court will give Petitioner the opportunity to cure this defect by amending the petition to 17 name a proper respondent, such as the warden of his facility. See West v. Louisiana, 478 F.2d 1026, 18 1029 (5th Cir. 1973), vacated in part on other grounds, 510 F.2d 363 (5th Cir. 1975) (en banc) 19 (allowing petitioner to amend petition to name proper respondent); Ashley v. State of Washington, 394 20 F.2d 125 (9th Cir. 1968) (same). 21 C. Failure to Demonstrate Exhaustion of State Remedies 22 A petitioner who is in state custody and wishes to collaterally challenge his conviction by a 23 petition for writ of habeas corpus must exhaust state judicial remedies. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(1). The 24 exhaustion doctrine is based on comity to the state court and gives the state court the initial 25 opportunity to correct the state's alleged constitutional deprivations. Coleman v. Thompson, 501 U.S. 26 722, 731 (1991); Rose v. Lundy, 455 U.S. 509, 518 (1982). 27 A petitioner can satisfy the exhaustion requirement by providing the highest state court with a 28 full and fair opportunity to consider each claim before presenting it to the federal court. Duncan v. 1 Henry, 513 U.S. 364, 365 (1995). A federal court will find that the highest state court was given a full 2 and fair opportunity to hear a claim if the petitioner has presented the highest state court with the 3 claim’s factual and legal basis. Duncan, 513 U.S. at 365 (legal basis); Kenney v. Tamayo-Reyes, 504 4 U.S. 1, 112 S.Ct. 1715, 1719 (1992) (factual basis). 5 Petitioner states he appealed to the California Court of Appeals, Fifth Appellate District, and 6 the appeal was affirmed in part and reversed in part on February 1, 2023. (Doc. 1 at 2.) In the space 7 provided to indicate whether Petitioner sought further review of the decision on appeal by a higher 8 state court, the answer is left blank. (Doc. 1 at 2.) Thus, it appears Petitioner has not raised his claims 9 to the California Supreme Court, and the claims are unexhausted. It is possible that Petitioner did 10 exhaust his state remedies but simply neglected to provide the information. Petitioner will be provided 11 an opportunity to include the information in his amended petition. 12 D. Failure to State a Cognizable Federal Claim 13 The basic scope of habeas corpus is prescribed by statute. Title 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a) states: 14 The Supreme Court, a Justice thereof, a circuit judge, or a district court shall entertain an application for a writ of habeas corpus in behalf of a person in custody pursuant to a 15 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. 16 17 (emphasis added). See also Rule 1 to the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States 18 District Court. The Supreme Court has held that “the essence of habeas corpus is an attack by a 19 person in custody upon the legality of that custody . . .” Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 484 20 (1973). 21 To succeed in a petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, Petitioner must demonstrate that the 22 adjudication of his claim in state court 23 (1) resulted in a decision that was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United 24 States; or (2) resulted in a decision that was based on an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented in the State court proceeding. 25 26 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1), (2).
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 10 11 JOAQUIN FLORES, ) Case No.: 1:24-cv-00444-SKO (HC) ) 12 Petitioner, ) ORDER DISMISSING PETITION WITH LEAVE ) TO FILE A FIRST AMENDED PETITION 13 v. ) ) [THIRTY DAY DEADLINE] 14 ) 15 THE PEOPLE, ) ) 16 Respondent. ) ) 17 18 Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with a petition for writ of 19 habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. A preliminary screening of the petition reveals that the 20 petition fails to name a proper respondent, fails to demonstrate exhaustion of state remedies, and fails 21 to present cognizable grounds for relief. Therefore, the Court will DISMISS the petition with leave to 22 file an amended petition. 23 I. DISCUSSION 24 A. Preliminary Review of Petition 25 Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases requires the Court to make a preliminary 26 review of each petition for writ of habeas corpus. The Court must summarily dismiss a petition “[i]f it 27 plainly appears from the petition and any attached exhibits that the petitioner is not entitled to relief in 28 the district court . . . .” Rule 4; O’Bremski v. Maass, 915 F.2d 418, 420 (9th Cir. 1990). The Advisory 1 Committee Notes to Rule 8 indicate that the Court may dismiss a petition for writ of habeas corpus, 2 either on its own motion under Rule 4, pursuant to the respondent’s motion to dismiss, or after an 3 answer to the petition has been filed. 4 B. Failure to Name a Proper Respondent 5 Petitioner names “The People” as Respondent. A petitioner seeking habeas corpus relief under 6 28 U.S.C. § 2254 must name the state officer having custody of him as the respondent to the petition. 7 Rule 2 (a) of the Rules Governing § 2254 Cases; Ortiz-Sandoval v. Gomez, 81 F.3d 891, 894 (9th Cir. 8 1996); Stanley v. California Supreme Court, 21 F.3d 359, 360 (9th Cir. 1994). Normally, the person 9 having custody of an incarcerated petitioner is the warden of the prison in which the petitioner is 10 incarcerated because the warden has "day-to-day control over" the petitioner. Brittingham v. United 11 States, 982 F.2d 378, 379 (9th Cir. 1992); see also Stanley, 21 F.3d at 360. However, the chief officer 12 in charge of state penal institutions is also appropriate. Ortiz, 81 F.3d at 894; Stanley, 21 F.3d at 360. 13 Petitioner’s failure to name a proper respondent requires dismissal of his habeas petition for 14 lack of jurisdiction. Stanley, 21 F.3d at 360; Olson v. California Adult Auth., 423 F.2d 1326, 1326 15 (9th Cir. 1970); see also Billiteri v. United States Bd. Of Parole, 541 F.2d 938, 948 (2nd Cir. 1976). 16 However, the Court will give Petitioner the opportunity to cure this defect by amending the petition to 17 name a proper respondent, such as the warden of his facility. See West v. Louisiana, 478 F.2d 1026, 18 1029 (5th Cir. 1973), vacated in part on other grounds, 510 F.2d 363 (5th Cir. 1975) (en banc) 19 (allowing petitioner to amend petition to name proper respondent); Ashley v. State of Washington, 394 20 F.2d 125 (9th Cir. 1968) (same). 21 C. Failure to Demonstrate Exhaustion of State Remedies 22 A petitioner who is in state custody and wishes to collaterally challenge his conviction by a 23 petition for writ of habeas corpus must exhaust state judicial remedies. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(1). The 24 exhaustion doctrine is based on comity to the state court and gives the state court the initial 25 opportunity to correct the state's alleged constitutional deprivations. Coleman v. Thompson, 501 U.S. 26 722, 731 (1991); Rose v. Lundy, 455 U.S. 509, 518 (1982). 27 A petitioner can satisfy the exhaustion requirement by providing the highest state court with a 28 full and fair opportunity to consider each claim before presenting it to the federal court. Duncan v. 1 Henry, 513 U.S. 364, 365 (1995). A federal court will find that the highest state court was given a full 2 and fair opportunity to hear a claim if the petitioner has presented the highest state court with the 3 claim’s factual and legal basis. Duncan, 513 U.S. at 365 (legal basis); Kenney v. Tamayo-Reyes, 504 4 U.S. 1, 112 S.Ct. 1715, 1719 (1992) (factual basis). 5 Petitioner states he appealed to the California Court of Appeals, Fifth Appellate District, and 6 the appeal was affirmed in part and reversed in part on February 1, 2023. (Doc. 1 at 2.) In the space 7 provided to indicate whether Petitioner sought further review of the decision on appeal by a higher 8 state court, the answer is left blank. (Doc. 1 at 2.) Thus, it appears Petitioner has not raised his claims 9 to the California Supreme Court, and the claims are unexhausted. It is possible that Petitioner did 10 exhaust his state remedies but simply neglected to provide the information. Petitioner will be provided 11 an opportunity to include the information in his amended petition. 12 D. Failure to State a Cognizable Federal Claim 13 The basic scope of habeas corpus is prescribed by statute. Title 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a) states: 14 The Supreme Court, a Justice thereof, a circuit judge, or a district court shall entertain an application for a writ of habeas corpus in behalf of a person in custody pursuant to a 15 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. 16 17 (emphasis added). See also Rule 1 to the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States 18 District Court. The Supreme Court has held that “the essence of habeas corpus is an attack by a 19 person in custody upon the legality of that custody . . .” Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 484 20 (1973). 21 To succeed in a petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, Petitioner must demonstrate that the 22 adjudication of his claim in state court 23 (1) resulted in a decision that was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United 24 States; or (2) resulted in a decision that was based on an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented in the State court proceeding. 25 26 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1), (2). 27 Rule 2(c) of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases also requires that the petition: 28 (1) Specify all the grounds for relief available to the petitioner; 1 (2) State the facts supporting each ground; (3) State the relief requested; 2 (4) Be printed, typewritten, or legibly handwritten; and (5) Be signed under penalty of perjury by the petitioner or by a person authorized to sign it for 3 the petitioner under 28 U.S.C. § 2242.
4 The petition fails to state a cognizable federal claim for relief and fails to comply with Rule 5 2(c). The claims are set forth in cursory fashion with little to no facts in support. For example, 6 Ground One states: “Daubert motion was denied.” The supporting facts are: “Sergeant Eugiene 7 Collins is on the California Brady list.” This is the entirety of the claim as stated and is completely 8 deficient and incomprehensible. Grounds Two and Four are similarly presented in cursory fashion and 9 unintelligible. Petitioner also fails to show how the state court’s rejection of his claims were contrary 10 to or an unreasonable application of Supreme Court precedent. Petitioner fails to state a cognizable 11 federal habeas claim and the petition must be dismissed. 12 Petitioner will be granted an opportunity to file a First Amended Petition curing the above- 13 noted deficiencies. Petitioner is advised that he should title his pleading, “First Amended Petition,” 14 and he should reference the instant case number. Failure to comply with this order will result in 15 dismissal of the action. 16 III. ORDER 17 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 18 1) The Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for 19 failure to name a proper respondent, failure to demonstrate exhaustion of state remedies, 20 and failure to state a claim; and 21 2) Petitioner is GRANTED thirty days from the date of service of this order to file a First 22 Amended Petition. 23 24 IT IS SO ORDERED.
25 Dated: April 16, 2024 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto . 26 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
27 28