Felix Williams v. M. D. Biter

Filing 3

ORDER SUMMARILY DISMISSING ACTION WITHOUT PREJUDICE by Judge James V. Selna. (See document for details). Case Terminated. Made JS-6. (ib)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

FELIX WILLIAMS,
Petitioner,

12
13
14
15

vs.
M.D. BITER, Warden,
Respondent.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CASE NO. CV 13-9574 JVS (RZ)
ORDER SUMMARILY DISMISSING
ACTION WITHOUT PREJUDICE

16
17

The Court will dismiss this habeas action summarily because the face of the

18

petition and judicially-noticeable information make clear that none of the petition’s claims

19

has been exhausted in the California Supreme Court. See generally 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b).

20

As noted below, this may be because Petitioner mistakenly sent this Court a petition

21

intended for the Los Angeles County Superior Court.

22

Generally, Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United

23

States District Courts provides that “[i]f it plainly appears from the face of the petition and

24

any exhibits annexed to it that the petitioner is not entitled to relief in the district court, the

25

judge shall make an order for its summary dismissal and cause the petitioner to be

26

notified.” More specifically, the Ninth Circuit indicates that a district court presented with

27

an entirely unexhausted petition may, or even must, dismiss the action. Raspberry v.

28

Garcia, 448 F.3d 1150, 1154 (9th Cir. 2006) (“Once a district court determines that a

1

habeas petition contains only unexhausted claims, it need not inquire further as to the

2

petitioner’s intentions. Instead, it may simply dismiss the habeas petition for failure to

3

exhaust.”), citing Jimenez v. Rice, 276 F.3d 478, 481 (9th Cir. 2001) (district court is

4

“obliged to dismiss [an entirely unexhausted petition] immediately” once respondent

5

moves for such dismissal).

6

The Court takes judicial notice that the petitioner in this case raised only one

7

claim on direct review, namely improper argument by the prosecution. See People v.

8

Williams, No. B234517, 2012 WL 4513857 (Cal.App.2d Dist.), at *3. After the California

9

Court of Appeal affirmed his conviction on October 3, 2012, id., the California Supreme

10

Court denied a petition for further direct review on December 12, 2012. See docket in

11

People

12

http://appellatecases.courtinfo.ca.gov/search/case/dockets.cfm?dist=0&doc_id=202912

13

6&doc_no=S206334. The Court further takes judicial notice that Petitioner has exhausted

14

no claims other than improper argument, for he has litigated no other actions in the

15

California Supreme Court, according to that court’s public docket.

v.

Williams,

No.

S206334

(Cal.

Supreme

Ct.),

available

at

16

Yet in the current petition, Petitioner asserts several entirely different claims.

17

These are difficult to parse because he has improperly included several legal rights under

18

each claim heading. Among them are “Actual/ Factual Innocence,” “Ineffective Assistance

19

of [trial and appellate] Counsel” and “Insufficient Evidence.” See Pet. at 3. Nowhere does

20

he reassert his sole exhausted claim of improper argument. (He includes a bare mention

21

of the term “Prosecutorial Misconduct” as one of four legalistic terms in the caption for

22

Claim 2, see Pet. at 4, but he does not go on to argue in the petition that the prosecution

23

committed misconduct. Indeed, he does not explain the “misconduct” at all.) Thus, the

24

current petition is entirely unexhausted. A Raspberry dismissal is in order.

25

Another reason for dismissal is a more practical one. It appears that the

26

current petition is Petitioner’s effort to exhaust several new claims in the state courts – and

27

that Petitioner simply mailed it to this Court by mistake. The petition’s caption lists the

28

“Los Angeles County Superior Court” as the court being petitioned. The petition is
-2-

1

handwritten on a California Judicial Council form (MC-275) for state habeas petitions,

2

rather than this Court’s required habeas form (CV-69).

3
4

For the foregoing reasons, the Petition is DISMISSED WITHOUT
PREJUDICE.

5
6

DATED: January 9, 2014

7
8
9

JAMES V. SELNA
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-3-