(HC)Sepeda v. Fresno County, California ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 TONY SEPEDA, Case No. 1:22-cv-00522-SAB-HC 11 Petitioner, ORDER GRANTING LEAVE TO AMEND PETITION 12 v. 13 FRESNO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA, 14 Respondent. 15 16 Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas corpus 17 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 18 I. 19 DISCUSSION 20 Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases (“Habeas Rules”) requires preliminary 21 review of a habeas petition and allows a district court to dismiss a petition before the respondent 22 is ordered to file a response, if it “plainly appears from the petition and any attached exhibits that 23 the petitioner is not entitled to relief in the district court.” Rule 4, Rules Governing Section 2254 24 Cases in the United States District Courts, 28 U.S.C. foll. § 2254. 25 A. Proper Respondent 26 In this case, Petitioner names “Fresno County, California” as Respondent. (ECF No. 1 at 27 1).1 However, a petitioner seeking habeas corpus relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 must name the 1 state officer having custody of him as the respondent to the petition. Habeas Rule 2(a); Ortiz- 2 Sandoval v. Gomez, 81 F.3d 891, 894 (9th Cir. 1996); Stanley v. California Supreme Court, 21 3 F.3d 359, 360 (9th Cir. 1994). Normally, the person having custody of an incarcerated petitioner 4 is the warden of the prison in which the petitioner is incarcerated. Smith v. Idaho, 392 F.3d 350, 5 355 (9th Cir. 2004); Stanley, 21 F.3d at 360. However, the chief officer in charge of state penal 6 institutions is also appropriate. Ortiz-Sandoval, 81 F.3d at 894; Stanley, 21 F.3d at 360. 7 Petitioner’s failure to name a proper respondent requires dismissal of his habeas petition 8 for lack of personal jurisdiction. Stanley, 21 F.3d at 360. However, the Court will give Petitioner 9 the opportunity to cure this defect by amending the petition to name a proper respondent, such as 10 the warden of his facility or the chief officer in charge of state penal institutions. See Dubrin v. 11 California, 720 F.3d 1095, 1100 (9th Cir. 2013) (petitioner should be granted leave to amend 12 petition to name proper respondent). 13 B. Failure to State a Cognizable Federal Habeas Claim 14 Habeas Rule 2 provides in pertinent part that a petition must “specify all the grounds for 15 relief available to the petitioner” and “state the facts supporting each ground.” Habeas Rule 16 2(c)(1)–(2). “A prime purpose of Rule 2(c)’s demand that habeas petitioners plead with 17 particularity is to assist the district court in determining whether the State should be ordered to 18 ‘show cause why the writ should not be granted.’” Mayle v. Felix, 545 U.S. 644, 656 (2005) 19 (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 2243). Here, the petition merely states “Senate Bill No. 1393” as a ground 20 for relief and does not contain supporting factual allegations of any kind. (ECF No. 1 at 3). 21 California Senate Bill 1393 “allow[s] a trial court to dismiss a serious felony 22 enhancement in furtherance of justice.” People v. Stamps, 9 Cal. 5th 685, 693 (2020). By statute, 23 federal courts “shall entertain an application for a writ of habeas corpus in behalf of a person in 24 custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court only on the ground that he is in custody in 25 violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a). 26 “[T]he second use of ‘in custody’ in the statute requires literally that the person applying for the 27 writ is contending that he is ‘in custody’ in violation of the Constitution or other federal laws.” 1 States, 530 U.S. 428, 439 n.3 (2000). Here, however, the petition does not allege a constitutional 2 violation. Whether a serious felony enhancement should be dismissed pursuant to Senate Bill 3 1393 is an issue of state law, and errors of state law do not warrant federal habeas corpus relief. 4 See Wilson v. Corcoran, 562 U.S. 1, 5 (2010) (per curiam) (“[I]t is only noncompliance with 5 federal law that renders a State’s criminal judgment susceptible to collateral attack in the federal 6 courts.”); Estelle v. McGuire, 502 U.S. 62, 67–68 (1991) (“We have stated many times that 7 ‘federal habeas corpus relief does not lie for errors of state law.’ Today, we reemphasize that it is 8 not the province of a federal habeas court to reexamine state-court determinations on state-law 9 questions.” (citations omitted)). 10 As the petition fails to state a cognizable claim for federal habeas relief, it should be 11 dismissed, but a petition for habeas corpus should not be dismissed without leave to amend 12 unless it appears that no tenable claim for relief can be pleaded were such leave granted. Jarvis v. 13 Nelson, 440 F.2d 13, 14 (9th Cir. 1971). Given the absolute lack of factual allegations in the 14 petition, it is unclear whether no tenable claim for relief can be pleaded if leave to amend were 15 granted. Therefore, the Court will grant Petitioner an opportunity to file an amended petition. 16 C. Exhaustion 17 It also appears that Petitioner may have failed to exhaust the claim that he raises in the 18 instant petition. A petitioner in state custody who is proceeding with a petition for writ of habeas 19 corpus must exhaust state judicial remedies. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(1). The exhaustion doctrine is 20 based on comity to the state court and gives the state court the initial opportunity to correct the 21 state’s alleged constitutional deprivations. Coleman v. Thompson, 501 U.S. 722, 731 (1991); 22 Rose v. Lundy, 455 U.S. 509, 518 (1982). A petitioner can satisfy the exhaustion requirement by 23 providing the highest state court with a full and fair opportunity to consider each claim before 24 presenting it to the federal court. O’Sullivan v. Boerckel, 526 U.S. 838, 845 (1999); Duncan v. 25 Henry, 513 U.S. 364, 365 (1995); Picard v. Connor, 404 U.S. 270, 276 (1971). 26 If Petitioner has not sought relief in the California Supreme Court, the Court cannot 27 proceed to the merits of his claim. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(1). Although the petition states that 1 | applications, or motions with respect to this conviction in any court other than direct appeal 2 | (ECF No. 1 at 5-6), it is possible that Petitioner presented his claim to the California Supreme 3 | Court and failed to indicate this to the Court. Thus, Petitioner must inform the Court whether his 4 | claim has been presented to the California Supreme Court, and if possible, provide the Court 5 | with a copy of the petition filed in the California Supreme Court that includes the claims now 6 | presented and a file stamp showing that the petition was indeed filed in the California Supreme 7 | Court. 8 Il. 9 ORDER 10 Accordingly, Petitioner is GRANTED leave to file an amended petition within THIRTY 11 | (30) days from the date of service of this order. 12 Petitioner is forewarned that failure to follow this order will result in a recommendation 13 | for dismissal of the petition for the reasons set forth above and pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil 14 | Procedure 41(b) (a petitioner’s failure to prosecute or to comply with a court order may result in 15 | a dismissal of the action). 16 17 IT IS SO ORDERED. OF. ee 1g | Dated: _May 13, 2022 _ Oe 19 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28