Free Order Dismissing Case - District Court of California - California

Case 3:08-cv-00495-JAH-BLM

Document 5

Filed 03/24/2008

Page 1 of 6

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 D. ADAMS, Warden, Respondent. v. ELMER R. BAUTISTA, Petitioner, Civil No. ORDER: (1) GRANTING APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS; (2) DISMISSING PETITION WITHOUT PREJUDICE; (3) DENYING MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL; AND (4) DENYING MOTION FOR EVIDENTIARY HEARING 08cv0495-JAH (BLM) UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has submitted a Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, together with a request to proceed in forma pauperis, a motion for an evidentiary hearing, and a motion for appointment of counsel. APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS Petitioner has no funds on account at the California correctional institution in which he is presently confined. Petitioner cannot afford the $5.00 filing fee. Thus, the Court GRANTS Petitioner's application to proceed in forma pauperis, and allows Petitioner to prosecute the above-referenced action as a poor person without being required to prepay fees or costs and without being required to post security.

K:\COMMON\EVERYONE\_EFILE-PROSE\JAH\08cv495-Grant&Dismiss.wpd, 3248

-1-

08cv0495

Case 3:08-cv-00495-JAH-BLM

Document 5

Filed 03/24/2008

Page 2 of 6

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

The Petition is subject to dismissal for a variety of reasons. The Court will inform Petitioner of these pleading defects and grant him leave to file an amended petition. FAILURE TO SIGN PETITION Rule 2(c) of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases provides that "[t]he petition must be printed, typewritten or legibly handwritten; and be signed under penalty of perjury by the petitioner or by a person authorized to sign it for the petitioner under 28 U.S.C. § 2242." Rule 2(c), 28 U.S.C. foll. § 2254 (emphasis added). Here, Petitioner has failed to sign the Petition under penalty of perjury. The Court therefore DISMISSES the action without prejudice to refiling of a "First Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus," which is signed by Petitioner under penalty of perjury. FAILURE TO USE PROPER FORM Additionally, a Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus must be submitted in accordance with the Local Rules of the United States District Court for the Southern District of California. See Rule 2(d), 28 U.S.C. foll. § 2254. In order to comply with the Local Rules, the petition must be submitted upon a court-approved form and in accordance with the instructions approved by the Court. Id.; S. D. CAL. CIVLR HC.2(b). Presently, Petitioner has submitted an application a for writ of habeas corpus on a non-approved form. The Court will send Petitioner a blank Southern District of California habeas petition form along with a copy of this Order. FAILURE TO ALLEGE EXHAUSTION OF STATE JUDICIAL REMEDIES Further, habeas petitioners who wish to challenge either their state court conviction or the length of their confinement in state prison, must first exhaust state judicial remedies. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b), (c); Granberry v. Greer, 481 U.S. 129, 133-34 (1987). To exhaust state judicial remedies, a California state prisoner must present the California Supreme Court with a fair opportunity to rule on the merits of every issue raised in his or her federal habeas petition. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b), (c); Granberry, 481 U.S. at 133-34. Moreover, to properly exhaust state court remedies a petitioner must allege, in state court, how one or more of his or her federal rights have been violated. The Supreme Court in Duncan v. Henry, 513 U.S. 364 (1995) reasoned: "If state courts are to be given the opportunity to correct alleged violations of prisoners' federal

K:\COMMON\EVERYONE\_EFILE-PROSE\JAH\08cv495-Grant&Dismiss.wpd, 3248

-2-

08cv0495

Case 3:08-cv-00495-JAH-BLM

Document 5

Filed 03/24/2008

Page 3 of 6

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

rights, they must surely be alerted to the fact that the prisoners are asserting claims under the United States Constitution." Id. at 365-66 (emphasis added). For example, "[i]f a habeas petitioner wishes to claim that an evidentiary ruling at a state court trial denied him [or her] the due process of law guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment, he [or she] must say so, not only in federal court, but in state court." Id. at 366 (emphasis added). Here, Petitioner has not indicated that he has exhausted state judicial remedies. Nowhere in the Petition does Petitioner allege that he raised his claims in the California Supreme Court. If Petitioner has raised his claims in the California Supreme Court he must so specify. The burden of pleading that a claim has been exhausted lies with the petitioner. Cartwright v. Cupp, 650 F.2d 1103, 1104 (9th Cir. 1981). Further, the Court cautions Petitioner that under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA) a one-year period of limitation shall apply to a petition for a writ of habeas corpus by a person in custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court. The limitation period shall run from the latest of: (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; (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, if the applicant was prevented from filing by such State action; (C) the date on which the constitutional right asserted was initially recognized by the Supreme Court, if the right has been newly recognized by the Supreme Court and made retroactively applicable to cases on collateral review; or (D) the date on which the factual predicate of the claim or claims presented could have been discovered through the exercise of due diligence. 28 U.S.C.A. § 2244(d)(1)(A)-(D) (West 2006). The statute of limitations does not run while a properly filed state habeas corpus petition is pending. 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(2); see Nino v. Galaza, 183 F.3d 1003, 1006 (9th Cir. 1999), cert. denied, 529 U.S. 1104 (2000). But see Artuz v. Bennett, 531 U.S. 4, 8 (2000) (holding that "an application is `properly filed' when its delivery and acceptance [by the appropriate court

K:\COMMON\EVERYONE\_EFILE-PROSE\JAH\08cv495-Grant&Dismiss.wpd, 3248

-3-

08cv0495

Case 3:08-cv-00495-JAH-BLM

Document 5

Filed 03/24/2008

Page 4 of 6

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

officer for placement into the record] are in compliance with the applicable laws and rules governing filings."). However, absent some other basis for tolling, the statute of limitations does run while a federal habeas petition is pending. Duncan v. Walker, 533 U.S. 167, 181-82 (2001). Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases provides for summary dismissal of a habeas petition "[i]f it plainly appears from the face of the petition and any attached exhibits that the petitioner is not entitled to relief in the district court . . ." Rule 4, 28 U.S.C. foll. § 2254. Here, it appears plain from the Petition that Petitioner is not presently entitled to federal habeas relief because he has not signed the Petition under penalty of perjury, has not used a courtapproved form, and has not alleged exhaustion of state court remedies. MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL Petitioner requests appointment of counsel to assist him in the instant action. The Sixth Amendment right to counsel does not extend to federal habeas corpus actions by state prisoners. McCleskey v. Zant, 499 U.S. 467, 495 (1991); Chaney v. Lewis, 801 F.2d 1191, 1196 (9th Cir. 1986); Knaubert v. Goldsmith, 791 F.2d 722, 728 (9th Cir. 1986). However, financially eligible habeas petitioners seeking relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 may obtain representation whenever the court "determines that the interests of justice so require.'" 18 U.S.C.

§ 3006A(a)(2)(B) (West 2006); Terrovona v. Kincheloe, 912 F.2d 1176, 1181 (9th Cir. 1990); Bashor v. Risley, 730 F.2d 1228, 1234 (9th Cir. 1984). The interests of justice require appointment of counsel when the court conducts an evidentiary hearing on the petition. Terrovona, 912 F.2d at 1177; Knaubert, 791 F.2d at 728; Abdullah v. Norris, 18 F.3d 571, 573 (8th Cir. 1994); Rule 8(c), 28 U.S.C. foll. § 2254. The appointment of counsel is discretionary when no evidentiary hearing is necessary. Terrovona, 912 F.2d at 1177; Knaubert, 791 F.2d at 728; Abdullah, 18 F.3d at 573. In the Ninth Circuit, "[i]ndigent state prisoners applying for habeas relief are not entitled to appointed counsel unless the circumstances of a particular case indicate that appointed counsel is necessary to prevent due process violations." Chaney, 801 F.2d at 1196; Knaubert, 791 F.2d at 728-29. A due process violation may occur in the absence of counsel if the issues involved are too complex for the petitioner. In addition, the appointment of counsel may be necessary if

K:\COMMON\EVERYONE\_EFILE-PROSE\JAH\08cv495-Grant&Dismiss.wpd, 3248

-4-

08cv0495

Case 3:08-cv-00495-JAH-BLM

Document 5

Filed 03/24/2008

Page 5 of 6

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

the petitioner has such limited education that he or she is incapable of presenting his or her claims. Hawkins v. Bennett, 423 F.2d 948, 950 (8th Cir. 1970). From the face of the petition, filed pro se, it appears that Petitioner has a good grasp of this case and the legal issues involved. Under such circumstances, a district court does not abuse its discretion in denying a state prisoner's request for appointment of counsel as it is simply not warranted by the interests of justice. See LaMere v. Risley, 827 F.2d 622, 626 (9th Cir. 1987). At this stage of the proceedings, the Court finds that the interests of justice do not require the appointment of counsel. If an evidentiary hearing is required, Rule 8(c) of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases requires that counsel be appointed to a petitioner who qualifies under 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(a)(2)(B). Rule 8(c), 28 U.S.C. foll. § 2254; see Wood v. Wainwright, 597 F.2d 1054 (5th Cir. 1979). In addition, the Court may appoint counsel for the effective utilization of any discovery process. Rule 6(a), 28 U.S.C. foll. § 2254. For the above-stated reasons, the "interests of justice" in this matter do not compel the appointment of counsel at this time. Accordingly, Petitioner's request for appointment of counsel is DENIED without prejudice. MOTION FOR AN EVIDENTIARY HEARING Because the Court dismisses the Petition without prejudice, the Court also DENIES as moot Petitioner's request for an evidentiary hearing. The denial is without prejudice to Petitioner to renew the motion if he files an amended petition. CONCLUSION AND ORDER Based on the foregoing, the Court GRANTS Petitioner's application to proceed in forma pauperis, DENIES the motion for appointment of counsel without prejudice, DENIES the motion for an evidentiary hearing without prejudice, and DISMISSES this action without prejudice and with leave to amend because Petitioner has failed to sign the Petition under penalty of perjury, has failed to use a court-approved petition form, and has failed to allege exhaustion of state judicial remedies. To have this case reopened, Petitioner must file a First Amended Petition no later than May 19, 2008, that cures the pleading deficiencies set forth above. The Clerk of Court shall send Petitioner a blank Southern District of California amended petition form along with this Order.

K:\COMMON\EVERYONE\_EFILE-PROSE\JAH\08cv495-Grant&Dismiss.wpd, 3248

-5-

08cv0495

Case 3:08-cv-00495-JAH-BLM

Document 5

Filed 03/24/2008

Page 6 of 6

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Further, Petitioner is advised that if he has not alleged exhaustion of his state court remedies before May 19, 2008, he will have to start over by filing a completely new habeas petition in this Court. See In re Turner, 101 F.3d 1323 (9th Cir. 1997). IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED: March 21, 2008 John A. Houston United States District Judge

K:\COMMON\EVERYONE\_EFILE-PROSE\JAH\08cv495-Grant&Dismiss.wpd, 3248

-6-

08cv0495