Orlando Hernandez Juarez v. U.S. District Court
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Jinsook Ohta (author)
Analysis
The court reviewed a pro se state prisoner's petition for a writ of habeas corpus challenging his conviction and sentence. The court dismissed the petition without prejudice because the petitioner failed to exhaust state remedies and failed to name the proper respondent, ordering him to file an amended petition by October 23, 2026.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Dismissal of the habeas petition without prejudice for failure to exhaust state remedies“Because Petitioner has not demonstrated that he has fully exhausted the claims he raises in his habeas petition, the Court dismisses the petition without prejudice.” | agree with court The court correctly applied the exhaustion requirement of 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b). The order recites that the petitioner filed appeals in the California Court of Appeal but did not demonstrate that the specific claims (lying witness and illegal enhancement) were presented to the California Supreme Court or that state remedies were unavailable. Dismissing without prejudice is the standard procedural remedy for a failure to exhaust, allowing the petitioner to cure the defect. |
Dismissal of the habeas petition for failure to name the proper respondent“Because Petitioner has incorrectly named the “U.S. District Court” as the Respondent instead of his prison warden, see Dkt. 1 at 1, the Court also dismisses the petition on this ground.” | agree with court The court correctly identified that under Rule 2(a) of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases, the respondent must be the custodian (warden). Naming the court itself is a procedural defect that prevents the court from proceeding on the merits. Dismissing without prejudice to allow amendment is appropriate for a pro se litigant who has not yet had an opportunity to correct this fundamental error. |
Order to file an amended petition by October 23, 2026“By October 23, 2026, Petitioner must file an amended petition which 1) names the proper respondent and 2) demonstrates that he has sufficiently exhausted the claims he raises in his habeas petition to have his case reopened.” | agree with court The court exercised its discretion to allow the pro se petitioner to amend the complaint to cure the identified defects. This is consistent with the liberal construction afforded to pro se filings and the goal of resolving cases on the merits where possible. |
The order itself: sound — The order is procedurally sound. It correctly identifies the two fatal defects in the initial petition: failure to exhaust state remedies and failure to name the proper respondent. It cites the correct statutory and case law authorities for both points. It provides a clear path for the petitioner to cure the defects by filing an amended petition. The reasoning is concise and directly addresses the issues raised by the face of the petition.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ORLANDO HERNANDEZ JUAREZ, Case No.: 26-cv-2338-JO-MMP 12 ORDER DISMISSING CASE Petitioner, 13 WITHOUT PREJUDICE v. 14 U.S. DISTRICT COURT, 15 Respondent. 16 17 Petitioner Orlando Hernandez Juarez, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed a 18 petition for a writ of habeas corpus.1 He appears to challenge (1) his state court conviction 19 on the grounds that one of the witnesses at his trial lied; and (2) the resulting sentence on 20 the grounds “that the trial court imposed an illegal enhancement.” For the below reasons, 21 the Court dismisses his petition. 22 First, Petitioner has not shown he has satisfied the requirement of first presenting his 23 claims to the highest state court before turning to the federal court. Petitioners wishing to 24 challenge a state court conviction or state imprisonment term must first exhaust state 25 26 27 1 While Petitioner has utilized form HC-001, which is published by the Judicial Council of California and designed for filing in state court, the Court liberally construes the filing pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 28 1 judicial remedies. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b), (c). To satisfy the exhaustion requirement, a 2 California prisoner must either (1) specify in his petition that he has presented the 3 California Supreme Court with a fair opportunity to rule on the merits of every issue raised 4 for federal habeas review or (2) demonstrate that no state remedy remains available. 5 Johnson v. Zenon, 88 F.3d 828 (9th Cir. 1996); see also Matthews v. Evatt, 105 F.3d 907, 6 911 (4th Cir. 1997) (“The burden of proving that a claim has been exhausted lies with the 7 petitioner.”). 8 Here, Petitioner fails to sufficiently plead exhaustion by indicating he has presented 9 his claims concerning the lying witness and illegal enhancement to the California Supreme 10 Court. Dkt. 1 at 5. It appears that Petitioner filed two separate appeals with the California 11 Court of Appeal,2 but it is unclear whether he presented either the lying-witness claim or 12 the illegal-enhancement claim to the California Supreme Court, or, if he did not, why no 13 state remedy remains available in either case. See People v. Hernandez Juarez, No. 14 D082954, 2025 Cal. App. Unpub. LEXIS 139, at *1 (Cal. Ct. App. Jan. 13, 2025) 15 (“Hernandez Juarez I”) (denying appeal challenging the sufficiency of the evidence and 16 declining to reach issues related to Petitioner’s sentencing); People v. Hernandez Juarez, 17 No. D084896, 2026 Cal. App. Unpub. LEXIS 2055, at *2 (Cal. Ct. App. Mar. 24, 2026) 18 (“Hernandez Juarez II”) (“remand[ing] with directions for the trial court to clarify” an 19 aspect of its sentence “and to amend and calculate custody credits”). Because Petitioner 20 has not demonstrated that he has fully exhausted the claims he raises in his habeas petition, 21 the Court dismisses the petition without prejudice. 22 Second, the habeas petition is defective because Petitioner has failed to name a 23 proper respondent. Under Rule 2(a) of Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases (2019), a state 24 prisoner must name the state officer having custody of him (i.e., the warden of his detention 25 26 27 2 See Fed. R. Evid. 201; Harris v. Cnty. of Orange, 682 F.3d 1126, 1132 (9th Cir. 2012) (a federal court may take judicial notice matters of documents on file in state courts). 28 1 || facility) as the respondent in a federal habeas claim. Because Petitioner has incorrectly 2 ||named the “U.S. District Court” as the Respondent instead of his prison warden, see Dkt. 3 || 1 at 1, the Court also dismisses the petition on this ground. 4 By October 23, 2026, Petitioner must file an amended petition which 1) names the 5 || proper respondent and 2) demonstrates that he has sufficiently exhausted the claims he 6 || raises in his habeas petition to have his case reopened. The Clerk of Court is directed to 7 || send Petitioner a blank form petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 8 a blank application to proceed in forma pauperis form together with a copy of this 9 || Order. 10 11 IT IS SO ORDERED. 12 Qe 13 || Dated: September 28, 2026 14 Hon. Jinsook Ohta 15 United States District Judge 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28