Koivisto v. Warden of CSP-Lancaster

CourtDistrict Court, S.D. California
DecidedOctober 9, 2019
Docket3:19-cv-01647
StatusUnknown

This text of Koivisto v. Warden of CSP-Lancaster (Koivisto v. Warden of CSP-Lancaster) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, S.D. California primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Koivisto v. Warden of CSP-Lancaster, (S.D. Cal. 2019).

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 TAUNO AUGUST KOIVISTO, Case No.: 19cv1647 LAB (NLS)

12 Petitioner, ORDER: (1) GRANTING 13 v. APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS; 14 WARDEN, CSP LANCASTER,

15 Respondent. (2) DISMISSING PETITION WITHOUT PREJUDICE 16

17 18 Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has submitted a Petition for Writ of 19 Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, together with a request to proceed in forma 20 pauperis. 21 REQUEST TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS 22 Petitioner has no funds on account at the California correctional institution in which 23 he is presently confined. Petitioner cannot afford the $5.00 filing fee. Thus, the Court 24 GRANTS Petitioner’s application to proceed in forma pauperis, and allows Petitioner to 25 prosecute the above-referenced action without being required to prepay fees or costs and 26 without being required to post security. The Clerk of the Court shall file the Petition for 27 Writ of Habeas Corpus without prepayment of the filing fee. 28 /// 1 FAILURE TO STATE A COGNIZABLE CLAIM ON FEDERAL HABEAS 2 The case must be dismissed because, in accordance with Rule 4 of the rules 3 governing § 2254 cases, Petitioner has failed to allege that his state court conviction or 4 sentence violates the Constitution of the United States. 5 Title 28, United States Code, § 2254(a), sets forth the following scope of review for 6 federal habeas corpus claims: 7 The Supreme Court, a Justice thereof, a circuit judge, or a district court shall entertain an application for a writ of habeas corpus in 8 behalf of a person in custody pursuant to the judgment of a State 9 court only on the ground that he is in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States. 10

11 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a) (emphasis added). See Hernandez v. Ylst, 930 F.2d 714, 719 (9th Cir. 12 1991); Mannhalt v. Reed, 847 F.2d 576, 579 (9th Cir. 1988); Kealohapauole v. Shimoda, 13 800 F.2d 1463, 1464-65 (9th Cir. 1986). Thus, to present a cognizable federal habeas 14 corpus claim under § 2254, a state prisoner must allege both that he is in custody pursuant 15 to a “judgment of a State court,” and that he is in custody in “violation of the Constitution 16 or laws or treaties of the United States.” See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a). 17 Here, while not entirely clear, Petitioner’s claim appears related to his medical 18 condition while incarcerated. (See Pet. at 6.) In no way, however, does Petitioner claim 19 he is “in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.” 20 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (emphasis added). 21 Further, the Court notes that Petitioner cannot simply amend his Petition to state a 22 federal habeas claim and then refile the amended petition in this case. He must exhaust 23 state judicial remedies before bringing his claims via federal habeas. State prisoners who 24 wish to challenge their state court conviction must first exhaust state judicial remedies. 28 25 U.S.C. § 2254(b), (c); Granberry v. Greer, 481 U.S. 129, 133-34 (1987). To exhaust state 26 judicial remedies, a California state prisoner must present the California Supreme Court 27 with a fair opportunity to rule on the merits of every issue raised in his or her federal habeas 28 petition. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b), (c); Granberry, 481 U.S. at 133-34. Moreover, to 1 properly exhaust state court judicial remedies a petitioner must allege, in state court, how 2 one or more of his or her federal rights have been violated. The Supreme Court in Duncan 3 v. Henry, 513 U.S. 364 (1995) reasoned: “If state courts are to be given the opportunity to 4 correct alleged violations of prisoners’ federal rights, they must surely be alerted to the fact 5 that the prisoners are asserting claims under the United States Constitution.” Id. at 365-66 6 (emphasis added). For example, “[i]f a habeas petitioner wishes to claim that an 7 evidentiary ruling at a state court trial denied him the due process of law guaranteed by the 8 Fourteenth Amendment, he must say so, not only in federal court, but in state court.” Id. 9 (emphasis added). 10 Additionally, the Court cautions Petitioner that under the Antiterrorism and 11 Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, a one-year period of limitation shall apply to a petition 12 for a writ of habeas corpus by a person in custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court. 13 The limitation period shall run from the latest of: 14 (A) the date on which the judgment became final by the conclusion of direct review or the expiration of the time for 15 seeking such review; 16 (B) the date on which the impediment to filing an 17 application created by State action in violation of the 18 Constitution or laws of the United States is removed, if the applicant was prevented from filing by such State action; 19

20 (C) the date on which the constitutional right asserted was initially recognized by the Supreme Court, if the right has 21 been newly recognized by the Supreme Court and made 22 retroactively applicable to cases on collateral review; or

23 (D) the date on which the factual predicate of the claim 24 or claims presented could have been discovered through the exercise of due diligence. 25

26 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1)(A)-(D) (West Supp. 2002). 27 The Court also notes that the statute of limitations does not run while a properly filed 28 state habeas corpus petition is pending. 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(2); see Nino v. Galaza, 183 1 || F.3d 1003, 1006 (9th Cir. 1999). But see Artuz v. Bennett, 531 U.S. 4, 8 (2000) (holding 2 || that “an application is ‘properly filed’ when its delivery and acceptance [by the appropriate 3 || court officer for placement into the record] are in compliance with the applicable laws and 4 |/rules governing filings.”). However, absent some other basis for tolling, the statute of 5 || limitations does run while a federal habeas petition is pending. Duncan v. Walker, 533 6 167, 181-82 (2001). 7 CONCLUSION 8 Based on the foregoing, the Court GRANTS Petitioner’s application to proceed in 9 || forma pauperis and DISMISSES this action without prejudice because Petitioner has failed 10 || to state a cognizable federal claim. To have this case reopened, Petitioner must, no later 11 December 9, 2019, file a First Amended Petition that cures the pleading deficiencies 12 ||set forth above. A blank First Amended Petition is included with this Order for Petitioner’s 13 |} convenience. 14 IT IS SO ORDERED. 15 || Dated: October 8, 2019 (tm f Af. JB Wy 16 Hon.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Granberry v. Greer
481 U.S. 129 (Supreme Court, 1987)
Artuz v. Bennett
531 U.S. 4 (Supreme Court, 2000)
Guenter Mannhalt v. Amos E. Reed
847 F.2d 576 (Ninth Circuit, 1988)
Mike Hernandez v. Eddie S. Ylst, Warden
930 F.2d 714 (Ninth Circuit, 1991)
Duncan v. Henry
513 U.S. 364 (Supreme Court, 1995)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Koivisto v. Warden of CSP-Lancaster, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/koivisto-v-warden-of-csp-lancaster-casd-2019.