Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Abdul Haleen Salaam, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging his 2006 conviction from the San Diego County Superior Court for first degree murder and his sentence of life without parole. On September 14, 2026, the court dismissed the case for failure to satisfy the filing fee requirement, failure to name a proper respondent, and failure to allege exhaustion of state court remedies. Salaam then filed a certified copy of his inmate trust account statement, which the court construed as a motion to proceed in forma pauperis, along with a First Amended Petition.
The court first addressed the in forma pauperis motion. A state prisoner's motion must include an affidavit executed under penalty of perjury showing inability to pay the $5.00 filing fee, plus a certified trust fund account statement for the six months preceding filing. Salaam submitted a trust account statement showing $82.60 on account but filed no affidavit, so the court denied the motion without prejudice, concluding he appeared able to afford the fee.
The Court’s Holding
The court denied the motion to proceed in forma pauperis without prejudice and dismissed the First Amended Petition without prejudice under Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases, which permits summary dismissal when it plainly appears the petitioner is not entitled to relief. The court found Salaam had once again failed to allege exhaustion of state court remedies under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b) and (c): although he had now named a proper respondent, he stated he never presented his claims to the California Supreme Court because his counsel never advised him to do so. A petitioner must fairly present his federal claim to the highest state court or show no state remedy remains, and the Rhines v. Weber stay-and-abeyance procedure was unavailable because the petition contained no cognizable federal claim.
The two pleaded claims — insufficient evidence to support first degree murder and a violation of the Racial Justice Act — appeared to rely only on state law, and nowhere did Salaam allege he was in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States as § 2254(a) requires. The operative result: the in forma pauperis motion is DENIED and the First Amended Petition is DISMISSED without prejudice. If Salaam wishes to proceed, he must file a Second Amended Petition by December 9, 2026, paying the $5.00 fee or filing a properly supported in forma pauperis motion, and may seek a stay and abeyance if the new petition includes cognizable federal claims he wishes to exhaust in state court.
Key Takeaways
- A state prisoner's motion to proceed in forma pauperis requires an affidavit under penalty of perjury showing inability to pay the filing fee and a certified six-month trust account statement; Salaam's missing affidavit and $82.60 balance supported denial without prejudice.
- Federal habeas petitioners must exhaust state remedies by fairly presenting federal claims to the highest state court with jurisdiction — here the California Supreme Court — or demonstrate that no state remedy remains available.
- To state a cognizable claim under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a), a petitioner must allege custody pursuant to a state court judgment and custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States; claims resting only on state law are insufficient.
- A Rhines stay and abeyance to return to state court is unavailable when the federal petition contains no arguably meritorious, cognizable federal claim.
- The dismissal is without prejudice: Salaam may file a Second Amended Petition by December 9, 2026, with the $5.00 filing fee or a properly supported in forma pauperis motion, and may move for a stay if it pleads cognizable federal claims he intends to exhaust.
Why It Matters
This order illustrates how federal courts screen pro se habeas petitions at the outset under Rule 4, dismissing without prejudice those that plainly fail the filing fee, exhaustion, and cognizability prerequisites of 28 U.S.C. § 2254 while giving the prisoner a defined path to cure the deficiencies by amendment.
The ruling also clarifies that the Rhines stay-and-abeyance procedure presupposes a cognizable federal claim, so a petition pleading only state-law grounds cannot be stayed for exhaustion. By pairing the denial of the in forma pauperis motion with detailed instructions and forms, the court balanced enforcement of procedural rules against the policy of allowing pro se prisoners a meaningful opportunity to seek federal habeas relief.