Daven Levi Williamson v. Deputy Kim Smith et al

Filing 3

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY PETITION SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED DUE TO FAILURE TO EXHAUST (AND PENDING STATE PETITION) by Magistrate Judge Kenly Kiya Kato. Response to Order to Show Cause due by 10/16/2014. (dts)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Case No.

CV 14-07384-BRO (KK)

Title

Daven Levi Williamson v. Deputy Kim Smith, et al.

Present: The
Honorable

Date

September 25, 2014

Kenly Kiya Kato, United States Magistrate Judge

Deb Taylor

n/a

n/a

Deputy Clerk

Court Reporter / Recorder

Tape No.

Attorneys Present for Petitioner:

Attorneys Present for Respondent:

n/a

n/a

Proceedings:

(In Chambers) Order to Show Cause Why Petition Should Not Be
Dismissed Due to Failure to Exhaust [and Pending State Petition]

On September 22, 2014, petitioner Daven Levi Williamson filed a Petition for Writ
of Habeas Corpus by a Person in State Custody under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (the "Petition").
This court having reviewed the Petition, it appears that the Petition is subject to dismissal
because, as indicated in the Petition, petitioner has not exhausted his state remedies with
respect to the grounds raised in his Petition. Further, petitioner states that his appeal is
currently pending before the Santa Barbara County Superior Court, pet. at 51, which
review could moot the instant federal Petition. The court will not make a final
determination regarding whether the federal Petition should be dismissed, however,
without giving petitioner an opportunity to address these issues.
Accordingly, the court hereby issues this Order to Show Cause why the Petition
should not be dismissed, and specifically orders petitioner to respond to the Order to
Show Cause in writing by no later than October 16, 2014. The court further directs
petitioner to review the information that follows, which provides additional explanation
as to why the federal Petition appears to be subject to dismissal and may assist petitioner
in determining how to respond.
The Exhaustion Requirement
A state prisoner must exhaust his or her state court remedies before a federal court
may consider granting habeas corpus relief. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(1)(A); O’Sullivan v.
1

For clarity, the Court utilizes the pagination provided by CM/ECF.

CV-90 (06/04)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Page 1 of 4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Case No.

CV 14-07384-BRO (KK)

Date

Title

September 25, 2014

Daven Levi Williamson v. Deputy Kim Smith, et al.

Boerckel, 526 U.S. 838, 842, 119 S. Ct. 1728, 144 L. Ed. 2d 1 (1999). To satisfy the
exhaustion requirement, a habeas petitioner must fairly present his or her federal claims
in the state courts in order to give the State the opportunity to pass upon and correct
alleged violations of the prisoner’s federal rights. Duncan v. Henry, 513 U.S. 364, 365,
115 S. Ct. 887, 130 L. Ed. 2d 865 (1995) (per curiam). A habeas petitioner must give the
state courts “one full opportunity” to decide a federal claim by carrying out “one
complete round” of the state’s appellate process in order to properly exhaust a claim.
O’Sullivan, 526 U.S. at 845.
For a petitioner in California state custody, this generally means that the petitioner
must have fairly presented his or her claims in a petition to the California Supreme Court.
See O’Sullivan, 526 U.S. at 845 (interpreting 28 U.S.C. § 2254(c)); Gatlin v. Madding,
189 F.3d 882,888 (9th Cir. 1999) (applying O’Sullivan to California). A claim has been
fairly presented if the petitioner has both “adequately described the factual basis for [the]
claim” and “identified the federal legal basis for [the] claim.” Gatlin, 189 F.3d at 888.
In this case, petitioner has raises the following grounds for relief: "[d]amage of
mental suffering, emotional distress, false and unfair sentence and conviction, future loss
of wages, future attorney's fees and damage to present affectiveness (sic) of plaintiffs
(sic) pro-per status in the superior courts of S.L.O. County in case #493304."2 However,
based upon the face of the petition, none of the grounds have been ruled on by the
California Supreme Court, and thus none of the grounds raised have yet been exhausted.
If this is correct, the Petition is subject to dismissal.
State Action Pending That Could Moot Federal Petition
As just noted, when a claim raised in a federal habeas petition is still pending
before a state court, the petitioner has not met the exhaustion requirement because he has
not given the state court the first opportunity to address the federal claim. See Duncan,
513 U.S. at 365. “If the prisoner’s claim is meritorious, and if the state remedy is prompt
and complete, there is no need to bring post-conviction proceedings in federal courts.”
Sherwood v. Tomkins, 716 F.2d 632, 633 (9th Cir. 1983) (internal quotation marks and
citation omitted).
2

The Court does not address at this time whether petitioner states a cognizable

claim.
CV-90 (06/04)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Page 2 of 4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Case No.

CV 14-07384-BRO (KK)

Date

Title

September 25, 2014

Daven Levi Williamson v. Deputy Kim Smith, et al.

Furthermore, a pending state appeal or petition renders a federal habeas petition
subject to dismissal even if the claim raised in the federal petition is different from the
issue raised in a pending state appeal or petition. See Sherwood, 716 F.2d at 634 (“When
. . . an appeal of a state criminal conviction is pending, a would-be habeas corpus
petitioner must await the outcome of his appeal before his state remedies are exhausted,
even where the issue to be challenged . . . has been finally settled in the state courts.”);
see also Schnepp v. Oregon, 333 F.2d 288, 288 (9th Cir. 1964) (per curiam) (state
remedies not exhausted where a state post-conviction proceeding is pending). This is
because, “even if the federal constitutional question raised by the habeas corpus
petitioner cannot be resolved in a pending state appeal, that appeal may result in the
reversal of the petitioner’s conviction on some other ground, thereby mooting the federal
question.” Sherwood, 716 F.2d at 634 (citing Davidson v. Klinger, 411 F.2d 746, 747
(9th Cir. 1969) (per curiam)).
Here, the federal Petition states that petitioner's appeal is currently pending. If it is
correct that petitioner retains a pending state action which may moot or otherwise affect
his alleged constitutional claims before this Court, he must await the outcome of that
action before presenting his claims in federal court, and thus the federal Petition would be
subject to dismissal.
Petitioner’s Options
If petitioner contends that he has in fact exhausted his state court remedies on the
grounds raised in his federal habeas Petition, he should clearly explain this in a written
response to this Order to Show Cause. The written response must be filed on or before
October 16, 2014. Petitioner should attach to his response copies of any documents
establishing that the grounds he raises are indeed exhausted, and that he does not have a
matter pending before the California courts.
Alternatively, petitioner may request a voluntary dismissal of this action without
prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a). A Notice of Dismissal
form is attached for petitioner’s convenience. The court advises petitioner, however,
that if petitioner should later attempt to again raise any dismissed claims in subsequent
habeas petition, those claims may be time-barred under the statute of limitations in 28
U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1) (“A 1-year period of limitation shall apply to an application for a
writ of habeas corpus by a person in custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court.”).
CV-90 (06/04)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Page 3 of 4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Case No.

CV 14-07384-BRO (KK)

Date

Title

September 25, 2014

Daven Levi Williamson v. Deputy Kim Smith, et al.

Such dismissal request must also be filed on or before October 16, 2014.
The court warns petitioner that failure to timely file and serve a response as
directed in this order will result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed
without prejudice for failure to exhaust state remedies, for failure to prosecute,
and/or for failure to obey court orders.

CV-90 (06/04)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Page 4 of 4