Shea v. San Diego Sheriffs

• Court: District Court, S.D. California
• Decided: June 7, 2023
• Docket: 3:23-cv-00594
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JOHN M. SHEA, Case No.: 3:23-cv-00594-MMA (WVG)

12 Petitioner, ORDER: 13 v. (1) GRANTING MOTION TO 14 MS. SOTO/MESA, et al., PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS; 15 Respondents. AND

16 [Doc. No. 5] 17 (2) DISMISSING CASE WITHOUT 18 PREJUDICE AND WITH LEAVE TO 19 AMEND 20 21 On March 31, 2023, Petitioner John M. Shea (“Petitioner”), a state prisoner 22 proceeding pro se, filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 23 § 2254 and a motion to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”). Doc. Nos. 1, 2. He then filed 24 an Amended Petition on April 20, 2023. Doc. No. 3. 25 On April 28, 2023, the Court denied Petitioner’s IFP motion because his trust 26 account statement showed he had sufficient funds to pay the $5.00 filing fee, and 27 dismissed the action because Petitioner had failed to name a proper respondent, failed to 28 state grounds for relief, and failed to allege exhaustion of his state judicial remedies. 1 Doc. No. 4. Petitioner was given until July 3, 2023, to either pay the $5.00 filing fee or 2 submit an IFP motion which showed he was unable to afford the fee, as well as file a 3 Second Amended Petition which cured the pleading deficiencies outlined in the Court’s 4 dismissal Order. Id. 5 On May 19, 2023, Petitioner filed another motion to proceed IFP and a Second 6 Amended Petition. Doc. Nos. 5–6. 7 MOTION TO PROCEED IFP 8 The trust account statement Petitioner filed with his motion to proceed IFP reflects 9 a balance of $0.20 in his trust account at the facility in which he is presently confined. 10 Doc. No. 5 at 5. Petitioner cannot afford the $5.00 filing fee. Thus, the Court GRANTS 11 Petitioner’s application to proceed in forma pauperis. The Clerk of the Court shall file 12 the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus without prepayment of the filing fee. 13 FAILURE TO NAME A PROPER RESPONDENT 14 Petitioner has again failed to name a proper respondent. On federal habeas, a state 15 prisoner must name the state officer having custody of him as the respondent. Ortiz- 16 Sandoval v. Gomez, 81 F.3d 891, 894 (9th Cir. 1996) (citing Rule 2(a), 28 U.S.C. foll. 17 § 2254). “The actual person who is [the] custodian [of the petitioner] must be the 18 respondent,” Ashley v. Washington, 394 F.2d 125, 126 (9th Cir. 1968), because the 19 custodian is the person who will produce “the body” if directed to do so by the Court. 20 Federal courts lack personal jurisdiction when a habeas petition fails to name a proper 21 respondent. See id. 22 The warden is the typical respondent. However, “the rules following section 2254 23 do not specify the warden.” Ortiz-Sandoval, 81 F.3d at 894. “[T]he ‘state officer having 24 custody’ may be ‘either the warden of the institution in which the petitioner is 25 incarcerated . . . or the chief officer in charge of state penal institutions.’” Id. (quoting 26 Rule 2(a), 28 U.S.C. foll. § 2254 advisory committee’s note). Thus, “[b]oth the warden 27 of a California prison and the [Secretary of the Department of Corrections and 28 Rehabilitation] for California have the power to produce the prisoner.” Id. at 895. 1 Here, Petitioner has incorrectly named “Ms. Soto/Mesa and Gavin Newsom” as 2 Respondents. In order for this Court to entertain the Petition filed in this action, 3 Petitioner must name the person in charge of the state correctional facility in which 4 Petitioner is presently confined or the Secretary of the California Department of 5 Corrections and Rehabilitation. Brittingham v. United States, 982 F.2d 378, 379 (9th Cir. 6 1992) (per curiam). 7 FAILURE TO STATE GROUNDS FOR RELIEF IN PETITION 8 Petitioner states in Ground One “denied polygraph exam,” and “Jack Campbell 9 was asked to give me a polygraph exam and did not ask DA approval.” Doc. No. 6 at 6. 10 In Ground Two, he states, “another witness not at trial lona camp,” and in Ground Three 11 he states, “I would like charges dismissed the 243.4c & 317PC & 2 others.” Id. at 7–8. 12 Rule 2(c) of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases states that the petition “shall set 13 forth in summary form the facts supporting each of the grounds . . . specified [in the 14 petition].” Rule 2(c), 28 U.S.C. foll. § 2254; see also Boehme v. Maxwell, 423 F.2d 15 1056, 1058 (9th Cir. 1970) (trial court’s dismissal of federal habeas proceeding affirmed 16 where petitioner made conclusory allegations instead of factual allegations showing that 17 he was entitled to relief). While courts should liberally interpret pro se pleadings with 18 leniency and understanding, this should not place on the reviewing court the entire onus 19 of ferreting out grounds for relief. Cf. Burkey v. Deeds, 824 F. Supp. 190, 193 (D. Nev. 20 1993) (finding that courts do not have entire onus of creating federal claim for petitioner). 21 The Court finds that the Petition fails to state constitutional grounds for relief. 22 This Court would have to engage in a tenuous analysis in order to attempt to identify and 23 make sense of the grounds Petitioner seeks to bring in his Petition. In order to satisfy 24 Rule 2(c), Petitioner must point to a “real possibility of constitutional error.” Cf. 25 Blackledge v. Allison, 431 U.S. 63, 75 n.7 (1977) (internal quotation marks omitted). 26 Facts must be stated with sufficient detail to enable the Court to determine, from the face 27 of the petition, whether further habeas corpus review is warranted. Adams v. Armontrout, 28 897 F.2d 332, 334 (8th Cir. 1990). Moreover, the allegations should be sufficiently 1 || specific to permit the respondent to assert appropriate objections and defenses. Harris v. 2 || Allen, 739 F. Supp. 564, 565 (W.D. Okla. 1989). Here, the lack of grounds for relief in 3 || the Petition prevents the Respondent from being able to assert appropriate objections and 4 || defenses. 5 CONCLUSION 6 For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS Petitioner’s motion to proceed IFP 7 (Doc. No. 5) and DISMISSKS this case without prejudice. To have the case reopened, 8 || Petitioner must, no later than August 14, 2023, file a Third Amended Petition that cures 9 || the pleading deficiencies outlined in this Order. If Petitioner does not correct the 10 || deficiencies of pleading identified by the Court by that date, or obtain leave for additional 11 to do so, the Court will dismiss this action without further leave to amend. 12 IT IS SO ORDERED. : 13 Dated: June 7, 2023 Wiikul TM □□ a tolls: 14 HON. MICHAEL M. ANELLO United States District Judge 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28