United States District Court, W.D. Washington, Tacoma
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE
Theresa L. Fricke, United States Magistrate Judge.
who is proceeding pro se, filed a Petition for Writ
of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Dkt. 1.
Petitioner indicates that he pled guilty to three counts of
child molestation in the first degree and was sentenced to
130 months on June 26, 2018. Id., at 2.
names the State of Washington as the respondent.
Id., at 1. Petitioner seeks release from
incarceration on the grounds that “the State of
Washington denied me my Article III Constitutional right to
trial by jury by abusing its power to imprison in order to
inflict sufficient duress for me to enter into a contract of
guilt.” Id., at 2. He further alleges he is
“illegally and unlawfully imprisoned as a result of the
abrogation of my federally conferred Constitutional rights by
the State of Washington and its willful defiance of the
established procedures and processes set forth by the U.S.
Constitution.” Id., at 6. Petitioner asserts
that because he was not indicted by a Grand Jury, his arrest,
conviction, and imprisonment are illegal. Id.
does not address exhaustion of state court remedies.
Id. Yet petitioner argues that “the State of
Washington has abrogated my federally conferred
constitutional rights therefore, no state court has
jurisdictional authority to adjudicate this matter.”
Rule 2(a) of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases,
“the petition must name as respondent the state
officer who has custody.” (emphasis added). That
state officer is the person “with the ability to
produce the prisoner's body before the habeas
court.” Rumsfeld v. Padilla, 542 U.S. 426, 435
(2004). The proper state officer is determined based on
petitioner's custody at the time he filed his petition.
See, e.g., Carson v. Hood, 1999 WL
978017 at *3 (D. Oregon 1999) (noting that warden was a
proper respondent because warden had control of
petitioner's release when petitioner initially filed his
petition); see also Maleng v. Cook, 490 U.S. 488,
490-91 (1989) (when prisoner filed petition while restrained,
custodian was proper respondent even after petitioner was
released). Failure of petitioner to name the correct
respondent deprives the Court of personal jurisdiction.
Smith v. Idaho, 392 F.3d 350, 354-55 (9th Cir.
proceed in a federal habeas action, petitioner must set forth
every ground on which he claims he is being held in violation
of the constitution and -- for each ground -- he must state
the specific facts that support his claim. Here, petitioner
alleges the state abused its power to imprison in order to
“inflict sufficient duress” for him to plead
guilty. Dkt. 1, at 2. Yet petitioner provides no facts to
support and explain this allegation.
may pursue federal habeas relief only after he has
exhausted his state judicial remedies. See Preiser v.
Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 500 (1973). The exhaustion of
state court remedies is a prerequisite to the granting of a
petition for writ of habeas corpus. 28 U.S.C. §
2254(b)(1). A petitioner can satisfy the exhaustion
requirement by providing the highest state court with a full
and fair opportunity to consider all claims before presenting
them to the federal court. Picard v. Connor, 404
U.S. 270, 276 (1971); Middleton v. Cupp, 768 F.2d
1083, 1086 (9th Cir. 1985). Full and fair presentation of
claims to the highest state court requires “full
factual development” of the claims in that forum.
Kenney v. Tamayo-Reyes, 504 U.S. 1, 8 (1992). The
petition fails to include any facts to explain whether
petitioner has satisfied the exhaustion requirement.
petitioner fails to remedy each and every one of these
deficiencies, the petition will be subject to dismissal
it is ORDERED:
(1) On or before May 24, 2019, petitioner
must file an amended petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254
that includes all of the following requirements: (a) names
the proper respondent; (b) sets forth the factual basis for
each of his grounds for relief; and (c) shows that each and
every one of his grounds for federal relief have been
properly exhausted in state court. If petitioner does not
timely file such an amended petition, the Court may dismiss.
If such an amended petition is not timely filed, petitioner
must otherwise make a legal and factual showing of cause on
or before May 24, 2019 why this matter
should not be dismissed.
(2) The Clerk shall send a copy of this Order to petitioner
and the Court's form petition for 28 U.S.C. ...