1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 TRAYVON MCFADDEN, Case No.: 3:25-cv-0047-RBM-JLB Petitioner, 12 ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR v. 13 WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS UNKNOWN, WITHOUT PREJUDICE 14 Respondent. 15 [Doc. 1] 16
17 On October 28, 2024, Petitioner Trayvon McFadden (“Petitioner”), a state prisoner 18 proceeding pro se, filed a Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 19 (“Petition”) challenging a judgment of conviction issued in the Superior Court, County of 20 San Diego (“San Diego Superior Court”) on April 16, 2021, and the resultant twenty-eight 21 (28) year sentence. (Doc. 1.) For the reasons set forth below, the Petition is DENIED 22 without prejudice. 23 I. BACKGROUND 24 25 Petitioner originally filed the Petition in the United States District Court, Central 26 District of California (“Central District”). After providing notice to Petitioner that he had 27 not paid the filing fee or requested to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) (see Doc. 2), the 28 Central District issued an Order to Show Cause why the case should not be dismissed for 1 failure to pay the filing fee or request to proceed IFP. (Doc. 4.) On December 23, 2024, 2 Petitioner paid the $5.00 filing fee (see Doc. 5) and the Order to Show Cause was 3 discharged thereafter (Doc. 6). On January 3, 2025, the instant case was transferred to this 4 district. (Docs. 7–8.) 5 In the Petition, Petitioner alleges his federal constitutional rights have been violated 6 due to an unauthorized sentence enhancement. (Doc. 1 at 7.) Specifically, Petitioner 7 alleges the sentence enhancement was not properly based on a violent felony and therefore 8 violated Article 1, Section 7 of the California Constitution, and the Fourteenth Amendment 9 Due Process Clause of the United States Constitution. (Id.) 10 II. LEGAL STANDARD 11 Petitioner brings this petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, which authorizes a prisoner 12 to file a writ of habeas corpus when he is “in custody pursuant to the judgment of a State.” 13 Brock v. Weston, 31 F.3d 887, 889 (9th Cir. 1994) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a)). “Rule 4 14 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases authorizes a district court to summarily dismiss 15 a habeas petition, before the respondent files an answer, ‘[i]f it plainly appears from the 16 petition and any attached exhibits that the petitioner is not entitled to relief in the district 17 court.’” Neiss v. Bludworth, 114 F.4th 1038, 1044 (9th Cir. 2024). 18 “[Ninth Circuit] precedent, and that of the Supreme Court, has made clear that Rule 19 4 dismissal is required on procedural grounds, such as failure to exhaust or untimeliness, 20 or on substantive grounds where the claims are ‘vague,’ ‘conclusory,’ ‘palpably 21 incredible,’ or ‘patently frivolous or false.’” Neiss, 114 F.4th at 1044 (citing Blackledge v. 22 Allison, 431 U.S. 63, 75–76 (1977). 23 III. DISCUSSION 24 A. Failure to Name a Proper Respondent 25 On federal habeas, a state prisoner must name the state officer having custody of 26 him as the respondent. Ortiz-Sandoval v. Gomez, 81 F.3d 891, 894 (9th Cir. 1996) (citing 27 R. 2(a), Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases (2019)). Federal courts lack personal 28 jurisdiction when a habeas petition fails to name a proper respondent. See id. Typically, 1 this person is “the warden of the facility in which the petitioner is incarcerated.” Id. (citing 2 Stanley v. California Supreme Ct., 21 F.3d 359, 360 (9th Cir. 1994)). However, “the rules 3 following section 2254 do not specify the warden.” Id. “[T]he ‘state officer having 4 custody’ may be ‘either the warden of the institution in which the petitioner is incarcerated 5 . . . or the chief officer in charge of state penal institutions.’” Id. (quoting R. 2(a), Rules 6 Governing Section 2254 Cases , 28 U.S.C. foll. § 2254 advisory committee’s note). 7 Here, Petitioner has not named a Respondent. (See Doc. 1 at 1.) For this Court to 8 consider the Petition, Petitioner must name the Warden in charge of the state correctional 9 facility where he is presently confined or the Director of the California Department of 10 Corrections and Rehabilitation. Brittingham v. United States, 982 F.2d 378, 379 (9th Cir. 11 1992) (per curiam). Accordingly, the instant Petition is subject to dismissal for failure to 12 name a proper Respondent. 13 B. Failure to Allege Exhaustion of State Judicial Remedies 14 Habeas petitioners who wish to challenge either their state court conviction or the 15 length of their confinement in state prison must first exhaust state judicial remedies. See 16 28 U.S.C. §§ 2254(b), (c); Granberry v. Greer, 481 U.S. 129, 133–34 (1987); see also 17 Picard v. Connor, 404 U.S. 270, 275 (1971) (“[A] state prisoner must normally exhaust 18 available state judicial remedies before a federal court will entertain his petition for habeas 19 corpus.”). “A petitioner has satisfied the exhaustion requirement if: (1) he has ‘fairly 20 presented’ his federal claim to the highest state court with jurisdiction to consider it,” which 21 in this case is the California Supreme Court, “or (2) he demonstrates that no state remedy 22 remains available.” Johnson v. Zenon, 88 F.3d 828, 829 (9th Cir. 1996) (citations omitted); 23 see also O’Sullivan v. Boerckel, 526 U.S. 838, 845 (1999) (“[S]tate prisoners must give the 24 state courts one full opportunity to resolve any constitutional issues by invoking one 25 complete round of the State’s established appellate review process.”). 26 Additionally, a state prisoner must present the federal court with the same claims 27 presented in state court and must allege, in state court, how one or more of his federal rights 28 have been violated. See Picard, 404 U.S. at 276 (“Only if the state courts have had the 1 first opportunity to hear the claim sought to be vindicated in a federal habeas proceeding 2 does it make sense to speak of the exhaustion of state remedies. Accordingly, we have 3 required a state prisoner to present the state courts with the same claim he urges upon the 4 federal courts.”); see also Duncan v. Henry, 513 U.S. 364, 365–66 (1995) (“If a habeas 5 petitioner wishes to claim that an evidentiary ruling at a state court trial denied him the due 6 process of law guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment, he must say so, not only in 7 federal court, but in state court.”). 8 Here, Petitioner fails to allege that he raised the claim(s) he wishes to bring here 9 before the California Supreme Court.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 TRAYVON MCFADDEN, Case No.: 3:25-cv-0047-RBM-JLB Petitioner, 12 ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR v. 13 WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS UNKNOWN, WITHOUT PREJUDICE 14 Respondent. 15 [Doc. 1] 16
17 On October 28, 2024, Petitioner Trayvon McFadden (“Petitioner”), a state prisoner 18 proceeding pro se, filed a Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 19 (“Petition”) challenging a judgment of conviction issued in the Superior Court, County of 20 San Diego (“San Diego Superior Court”) on April 16, 2021, and the resultant twenty-eight 21 (28) year sentence. (Doc. 1.) For the reasons set forth below, the Petition is DENIED 22 without prejudice. 23 I. BACKGROUND 24 25 Petitioner originally filed the Petition in the United States District Court, Central 26 District of California (“Central District”). After providing notice to Petitioner that he had 27 not paid the filing fee or requested to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) (see Doc. 2), the 28 Central District issued an Order to Show Cause why the case should not be dismissed for 1 failure to pay the filing fee or request to proceed IFP. (Doc. 4.) On December 23, 2024, 2 Petitioner paid the $5.00 filing fee (see Doc. 5) and the Order to Show Cause was 3 discharged thereafter (Doc. 6). On January 3, 2025, the instant case was transferred to this 4 district. (Docs. 7–8.) 5 In the Petition, Petitioner alleges his federal constitutional rights have been violated 6 due to an unauthorized sentence enhancement. (Doc. 1 at 7.) Specifically, Petitioner 7 alleges the sentence enhancement was not properly based on a violent felony and therefore 8 violated Article 1, Section 7 of the California Constitution, and the Fourteenth Amendment 9 Due Process Clause of the United States Constitution. (Id.) 10 II. LEGAL STANDARD 11 Petitioner brings this petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, which authorizes a prisoner 12 to file a writ of habeas corpus when he is “in custody pursuant to the judgment of a State.” 13 Brock v. Weston, 31 F.3d 887, 889 (9th Cir. 1994) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a)). “Rule 4 14 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases authorizes a district court to summarily dismiss 15 a habeas petition, before the respondent files an answer, ‘[i]f it plainly appears from the 16 petition and any attached exhibits that the petitioner is not entitled to relief in the district 17 court.’” Neiss v. Bludworth, 114 F.4th 1038, 1044 (9th Cir. 2024). 18 “[Ninth Circuit] precedent, and that of the Supreme Court, has made clear that Rule 19 4 dismissal is required on procedural grounds, such as failure to exhaust or untimeliness, 20 or on substantive grounds where the claims are ‘vague,’ ‘conclusory,’ ‘palpably 21 incredible,’ or ‘patently frivolous or false.’” Neiss, 114 F.4th at 1044 (citing Blackledge v. 22 Allison, 431 U.S. 63, 75–76 (1977). 23 III. DISCUSSION 24 A. Failure to Name a Proper Respondent 25 On federal habeas, a state prisoner must name the state officer having custody of 26 him as the respondent. Ortiz-Sandoval v. Gomez, 81 F.3d 891, 894 (9th Cir. 1996) (citing 27 R. 2(a), Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases (2019)). Federal courts lack personal 28 jurisdiction when a habeas petition fails to name a proper respondent. See id. Typically, 1 this person is “the warden of the facility in which the petitioner is incarcerated.” Id. (citing 2 Stanley v. California Supreme Ct., 21 F.3d 359, 360 (9th Cir. 1994)). However, “the rules 3 following section 2254 do not specify the warden.” Id. “[T]he ‘state officer having 4 custody’ may be ‘either the warden of the institution in which the petitioner is incarcerated 5 . . . or the chief officer in charge of state penal institutions.’” Id. (quoting R. 2(a), Rules 6 Governing Section 2254 Cases , 28 U.S.C. foll. § 2254 advisory committee’s note). 7 Here, Petitioner has not named a Respondent. (See Doc. 1 at 1.) For this Court to 8 consider the Petition, Petitioner must name the Warden in charge of the state correctional 9 facility where he is presently confined or the Director of the California Department of 10 Corrections and Rehabilitation. Brittingham v. United States, 982 F.2d 378, 379 (9th Cir. 11 1992) (per curiam). Accordingly, the instant Petition is subject to dismissal for failure to 12 name a proper Respondent. 13 B. Failure to Allege Exhaustion of State Judicial Remedies 14 Habeas petitioners who wish to challenge either their state court conviction or the 15 length of their confinement in state prison must first exhaust state judicial remedies. See 16 28 U.S.C. §§ 2254(b), (c); Granberry v. Greer, 481 U.S. 129, 133–34 (1987); see also 17 Picard v. Connor, 404 U.S. 270, 275 (1971) (“[A] state prisoner must normally exhaust 18 available state judicial remedies before a federal court will entertain his petition for habeas 19 corpus.”). “A petitioner has satisfied the exhaustion requirement if: (1) he has ‘fairly 20 presented’ his federal claim to the highest state court with jurisdiction to consider it,” which 21 in this case is the California Supreme Court, “or (2) he demonstrates that no state remedy 22 remains available.” Johnson v. Zenon, 88 F.3d 828, 829 (9th Cir. 1996) (citations omitted); 23 see also O’Sullivan v. Boerckel, 526 U.S. 838, 845 (1999) (“[S]tate prisoners must give the 24 state courts one full opportunity to resolve any constitutional issues by invoking one 25 complete round of the State’s established appellate review process.”). 26 Additionally, a state prisoner must present the federal court with the same claims 27 presented in state court and must allege, in state court, how one or more of his federal rights 28 have been violated. See Picard, 404 U.S. at 276 (“Only if the state courts have had the 1 first opportunity to hear the claim sought to be vindicated in a federal habeas proceeding 2 does it make sense to speak of the exhaustion of state remedies. Accordingly, we have 3 required a state prisoner to present the state courts with the same claim he urges upon the 4 federal courts.”); see also Duncan v. Henry, 513 U.S. 364, 365–66 (1995) (“If a habeas 5 petitioner wishes to claim that an evidentiary ruling at a state court trial denied him the due 6 process of law guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment, he must say so, not only in 7 federal court, but in state court.”). 8 Here, Petitioner fails to allege that he raised the claim(s) he wishes to bring here 9 before the California Supreme Court. In the Petition, Petitioner raises one enumerated 10 claim for relief, alleging his “sentence enhancement prison term is unauthorized” under 11 both the California Constitution and the Fourteenth Amendment Due Process Clause of the 12 United States Constitution. (Doc. 1 at 6–7.) While he indicates that he raised a due process 13 claim in the California Court of Appeal on direct appeal, Petitioner did not complete the 14 section of the habeas form asking whether he sought further direct review in the California 15 Supreme Court. (See id. at 2.) Petitioner also failed to answer the question on the habeas 16 form asking whether this claim has been raised in the California Supreme Court. (See id. 17 at 6.) Indeed, Petitioner affirmatively indicates he did not seek collateral review in the 18 California Superior Court or the California Supreme Court. (See id. at 3–4 (emphasis 19 added).) If Petitioner raised his claims in the California Supreme Court, he must so specify. 20 Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases provides for summary dismissal 21 of a habeas petition “[i]f it plainly appears from the face of the petition and any attached 22 exhibits that the petitioner is not entitled to relief in the district court . . .” R. 4, Rules 23 Governing Section 2254 Cases (2019). As Petitioner has not alleged exhaustion of state 24 court remedies as to his sole enumerated claim, it appears plain from the Petition that he is 25 not presently entitled to federal habeas relief. See Rasberry v. Garcia, 448 F.3d 1150, 1154 26 (9th Cir. 2006) (“Once a district court determines that a habeas petition contains only 27 unexhausted claims, it need not inquire further into the petitioner’s intentions. Instead, it 28 1 may simply dismiss the habeas petition for failure to exhaust.”) (citing Jiminez v. Rice, 276 2 F.3d 478, 481 (9th Cir. 2001)). 3 The Court additionally cautions Petitioner that under the Antiterrorism and Effective 4 Death Penalty Act of 1996 (“AEDPA”), a one-year period of limitation shall apply to a 5 petition for a writ of habeas corpus by a person in custody pursuant to the judgment of a 6 state court. The limitation period shall run from the latest of: 7 (A) the date on which the judgment became final by the conclusion of direct review or the expiration of the time for seeking such review; 8
9 (B) the date on which the impediment to filing an application created by State action in violation of the Constitution or laws of the United States is removed, 10 if the applicant was prevented from filing by such State action; 11 (C) the date on which the constitutional right asserted was initially recognized 12 by the Supreme Court, if the right has been newly recognized by the Supreme 13 Court and made retroactively applicable to cases on collateral review; or
14 (D) the date on which the factual predicate of the claim or claims presented 15 could have been discovered through the exercise of due diligence. 16 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1)(A)–(D). 17 The statute of limitations does not run while a properly filed habeas corpus petition 18 is pending in state court. 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(2). “[A]n application is ‘properly filed’ 19 when its delivery and acceptance [by the appropriate court officer for placement into the 20 record] are in compliance with the applicable [state] laws and rules governing filings.” 21 Artuz v. Bennett, 531 U.S. 4, 8 (2000). However, absent another basis for tolling, the statute 22 of limitations continues to run while a federal habeas petition is pending. Duncan v. 23 Walker, 533 U.S. 167, 181–82 (2001). 24 IV. CONCLUSION 25 For the reasons discussed above, the Court DISMISSES the Petition without 26 prejudice for failure to name a proper Respondent and failure to allege exhaustion of state 27 judicial remedies. To have this case re-opened, Petitioner must submit a First Amended 28 Petition that cures the pleading deficiencies outlined in the instant Order on or before June 1 16,2025. The Clerk of Court is directed to send Petitioner a blank 28 U.S.C. § 2254 2 || Amended Habeas Petition form together with a copy of this Order. 3 IT IS SO ORDERED. 4 ||DATE: April 25, 2025 5 Gat Bermudy, Micteryy 6 HON. RUTH BERMUDEZ'MONTENEGRO UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 7 8 9 10 1] 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28