Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ABDUL HALEEN SALAAM, Case No.: 26-cv-04973-BTM-BJW 12 Petitioner, ORDER DISMISSING CASE 13 v. WITHOUT PREJUDICE 14 SAN DIEGO COUNTY SUPERIOR [ECF NO. 1] COURT, 15 Respondent. 16 17 18 Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed a Petition for a Writ of Habeas 19 Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, but has failed to pay the $5.00 filing fee or submit a 20 request to proceed in forma pauperis. (ECF No. 1 (“Pet.”).) Because the Court cannot 21 proceed until Petitioner has either paid the $5.00 filing fee or qualified to proceed in forma 22 pauperis, the instant habeas case is subject to dismissal without prejudice. See Rules 23 Governing § 2254 Cases R. 3(a) (2019). 24 In addition, Petitioner fails to name a proper respondent. In federal habeas cases, a 25 state prisoner must name the state officer having custody of them as the respondent. Ortiz- 26 Sandoval v. Gomez, 81 F.3d 891, 894 (9th Cir. 1996) (citing Rules Governing § 2254 Cases 27 R. 2 (2019)). Federal courts lack personal jurisdiction when a habeas petition fails to name 28 a proper respondent. See id. 1 “[T]he ‘state officer having custody’ may be ‘either the warden of the institution in 2 which the petitioner is incarcerated . . . or the chief officer in charge of state penal 3 institutions.’” Id. (quoting Rules Governing § 2254 Cases R. 2 (2019), advisory 4 committee’s note). Here, Petitioner has named as Respondent the San Diego County 5 Superior Court. (See Pet., 1.) For the Court to proceed, Petitioner must name the warden 6 in charge of the state correctional facility in which Petitioner is currently confined or the 7 Secretary of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. See Brittingham 8 v. United States, 982 F.2d 378, 379 (9th Cir. 1992). Thus, the Petition is also subject to 9 dismissal for failure to name a proper Respondent. 10 Finally, Petitioner has failed to allege that state court remedies have been exhausted. 11 Habeas petitioners who wish to challenge either their state court conviction or the length 12 of their confinement in state prison must first exhaust state judicial remedies. See 28 U.S.C. 13 § 2254(b), (c); see Picard v. Connor, 404 U.S. 270, 275 (1971) (“[A] state prisoner must 14 normally exhaust available state judicial remedies before a federal court will entertain his 15 petition for habeas corpus.”). “A petitioner has satisfied the exhaustion requirement if: (1) 16 he has ‘fairly presented’ his federal claim to the highest state court with jurisdiction to 17 consider it,” which in this case is the California Supreme Court, “or (2) he demonstrates 18 that no state remedy remains available.” Johnson v. Zenon, 88 F.3d 828, 829 (9th Cir. 19 1996) (citations omitted); see also O’Sullivan v. Boerckel, 526 U.S. 838, 845 (1999) 20 (“[S]tate prisoners must give the state courts one full opportunity to resolve any 21 constitutional issues by invoking one complete round of the State’s established appellate 22 review process.”). The claims presented in the federal courts must be the same as those 23 exhausted in state court and must allege, in state court, how one or more federal rights have 24 been violated. See Picard, 404 U.S. at 276 (“Only if the state courts have had the first 25 opportunity to hear the claim sought to be vindicated in a federal habeas proceeding does 26 it make sense to speak of the exhaustion of state remedies. Accordingly, we have required 27 a state prisoner to present the state courts with the same claim he urges upon the federal 28 courts.”); see also Duncan v. Henry, 513 U.S. 364, 365–66 (1995) (“If state courts are to 1 || be given the opportunity to correct alleged violations of prisoners’ federal rights, they must 2 ||surely be alerted to the fact that the prisoners are asserting claims under the United States 3 Constitution. If a habeas petitioner wishes to claim that an evidentiary ruling at a state 4 court trial denied him the due process of law guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment, he 5 || must say so, not only in federal court, but in state court.”). 6 Petitioner indicates that his attorney did not file an appeal of his 2006 state court 7 || conviction (see Pet., 3), that “I’ve just discovered new laws and cases,” and that “my case 8 |/is currently at the appellate level pending appeal” (/d. at 4). Petitioner does not allege that 9 raised any claims in the California Supreme Court. 10 Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases provides for summary dismissal 11 a habeas petition “[i]f plainly appears from the petition and any attached exhibits that 12 || the petitioner is not entitled to relief in the district court.” Rules Governing § 2254 Cases 13 (2019). Here, it appears plain from the Petition that Petitioner is not presently entitled 14 federal habeas relief because Petitioner has not satisfied the filing fee requirement, has 15 named a proper Respondent, and has not alleged exhaustion of state court remedies. If 16 || Petitioner wishes to proceed with this action, he must either pay the $5.00 filing fee or 17 || submit an application to proceed in forma pauperis and file a First Amended Petition which 18 || cures those defects of pleading no later than November 9, 2026. The Clerk of Court will 19 a blank Southern District of California In Forma Pauperis application and a blank 20 Southern District of California amended § 2254 petition form to Petitioner along with a 21 of this Order. 22 IT IS SO ORDERED. 23 : , Dated: September 14, 2026 j ill eek Honor&ble Barry Ted Mosko 25 United States District Judge 26 27 28