Opinion
CASE NO. C02-2571R
January 7, 2003
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Petitioner seeks to proceed pro se and in forma pauperis in this 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition for writ of habeas corpus.
I. Background
On December 20, 2002, the King County Superior Court ordered that petitioner be detained for involuntary treatment at West Seattle Psychiatric Hospital, pending a mental illness proceeding which was to be held on December 27, 2002. The current petition appears to challenge the Superior Court's decision to place petitioner in psychiatric treatment, claiming that petitioner's "conviction" was obtained through the use of a coerced confession, the use of evidence obtained during an unlawful arrest, the violation of petitioner's right against self incrimination, and the violation of petitioner's right against double jeopardy
II Discussion
Petitioner's request to proceed in forma pauperis is difficult to comprehend and fails to provide the requested information. For example, when asked for the names and relationships of any persons dependent upon petitioner for support, petitioner wrote "OPEN Truesary PA 0000L60651 Kansas City MO" [sic]. Still, it would be futile for the Court to provide petitioner with an opportunity to remedy the deficiencies, since the petition itself is frivolous
First, a petitioner for habeas corpus relief must name the officer having custody of him as the respondent to the petition. Federal Rules Governing Habeas Corpus Cases Under § 2254, Rule 2(a) Stanley v. California Supreme Court, 21 F.3d 359, 360 (9th Cir. 1994). The petitioner's failure to name his custodian as a respondent deprives the district court of jurisdiction. Stanley, 21 F.3d at 360. In the present case, petitioner names the "King County Superior Court" as respondent, which is not a person having custody of the petitioner. Therefore, petitioner has not named the proper respondent, and this Court lacks jurisdiction
Second, a petitioner must exhaust all state remedies before a federal court may grant his petition. 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (b)(1). This rule generally requires petitioner to alert the state court, at all stages of the state's review process, to the fact that he is asserting a federal claim Vasquez v Hillery, 474 U.S. 254, 257 (1986); Duncan v. Henry, 513 U.S 364, 365-66 (1995); O'Sullivan v. Boerckel, 526 U.S. 838, 845 (1999). If a claim is not properly exhausted, then it is procedurally defaulted. O'Sullivan, 526 U.S. at 848. If a claim is procedurally defaulted, petitioner may not raise it in federal court unless he demonstrates cause for failing to properly present the claim to state court and actual prejudice resulting from such failure. Edwards v. Carpenter, 529 U.S. 446, 451 (2000). Here, petitioner did not present this petition to any state court. Moreover, he states that he sought review from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in the year 2000, however the facts leading to the current case took place in 2002. Petitioner did not satisfy the exhaustion requirement, and he has not demonstrated cause for failing to do so, nor actual prejudice resulting from such failure.
III. Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, petitioner's 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition should be summarily denied In addition, petitioner should be advised that if he continues to file such frivolous petitions, an order barring future filings (similar to that entered by the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Washington) may be entered against him. A proposed order accompanies this Report and Recommendation.