Michael Morris v. John Soto

Filing 16

ORDER ACCEPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS by Judge John A. Kronstadt: IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that this action be summarily dismissed without prejudice, pursuant to Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts. (jm)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
10

MICHAEL MORRIS,

11

vs.

12
13

Petitioner,

JOHN SOTO, Warden,

14

Respondent.

15
16

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. CV 15-823 JAK (FFM)
ORDER RE SUMMARY
DISMISSAL OF ACTION WITHOUT
PREJUDICE

On or about January 11, 2015, petitioner constructively filed a Petition for

17

Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person in State Custody (“Petition”) herein. The

18

Petition challenges a 2012 conviction and sentence.

19

Respondent filed a motion to dismiss the Petition on the ground that

20

petitioner’s direct appeal and a state habeas petition for writ of habeas corpus are

21

pending. The Court offered petitioner an opportunity to oppose the motion to

22

dismiss, but he failed to file any opposition by the June 18, 2015 due date or any

23

time thereafter.

24

In support of the motion, respondent has lodged documents demonstrating

25

that petitioner filed an appeal from the trial court’s resentencing order on March

26

25, 2015 (Lodged Doc. 10) and a petition for writ of habeas corpus with the

27

California Court of Appeal on April 16, 2015 (Lodged Doc. 11).

28

///

1

As a matter of comity, a federal court will not entertain a habeas corpus

2

petition unless the petitioner has exhausted the available state judicial remedies on

3

every ground presented in the petition. Rose v. Lundy, 455 U.S. 509, 518-22, 102

4

S. Ct. 1198, 71 L. Ed. 2d 379 (1982). The habeas statute now explicitly provides

5

that a habeas petition brought by a person in state custody “shall not be granted

6

unless it appears that -- (A) the applicant has exhausted the remedies available in

7

the courts of the State; or (B)(i) there is an absence of available State corrective

8

process; or (ii) circumstances exist that render such process ineffective to protect

9

the rights of the applicant.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(1). Moreover, if the exhaustion

10

requirement is to be waived, it must be waived expressly by the State, through

11

counsel. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(3).

12

Exhaustion requires that the prisoner’s contentions be fairly presented to the

13

state courts, and be disposed of on the merits by the highest court of the state.

14

Carothers v. Rhay, 594 F.2d 225, 228 (9th Cir. 1979). A claim has not been fairly

15

presented unless the prisoner has described in the state court proceedings both the

16

operative facts and the federal legal theory on which his claim is based. See

17

Duncan v. Henry, 513 U.S. 364, 365-66, 115 S. Ct. 887, 130 L. Ed. 2d 865

18

(1995); Picard v. Connor, 404 U.S. 270, 275-78, 92 S. Ct. 509, 30 L. Ed. 2d 438

19

(1971); Johnson v. Zenon, 88 F.3d 828, 830 (9th Cir. 1996). A federal court may

20

raise the failure to exhaust issues sua sponte and may summarily dismiss on that

21

ground. See Stone v. San Francisco, 968 F.2d 850, 856 (9th Cir. 1992);

22

Cartwright v. Cupp, 650 F.2d 1103, 1104 (9th Cir. 1981) (per curiam); see also

23

Granberry v. Greer, 481 U.S. 129, 134-35, 107 S. Ct. 1671, 95 L. Ed. 2d 119

24

(1987).

25

Because petitioner’s direct appeal is currently pending in the California

26

Court of Appeal, the exhaustion issue here is governed by the Ninth Circuit’s

27

holding and reasoning in Sherwood v. Tompkins, 716 F.2d 632 (9th Cir. 1983).

28

There, the petitioner was seeking habeas relief on the ground that he had been
2

1

denied his right to appointed counsel and free transcripts. Although the

2

petitioner’s state appeal from his conviction still was pending, the petitioner

3

arguably had exhausted his state remedies with respect to the particular claim

4

being raised in his federal habeas petition. The Ninth Circuit held that the federal

5

habeas petition nevertheless had to be dismissed for failure to exhaust state

6

remedies:

7

[E]ven were Sherwood to have exhausted all his state remedies with

8

respect to the denial of his appointed counsel and free transcript

9

request, that would not be enough to satisfy the requirements of 28

10

U.S.C. §§ 2254(b) and (c). When, as in the present case, an appeal of a

11

state criminal conviction is pending, a would-be habeas corpus

12

petitioner must await the outcome of his appeal before his state

13

remedies are exhausted, even where the issue to be challenged in the

14

writ of habeas corpus has been finally settled in the state courts.

15

As we explained in Davidson v. Klinger, 411 F.2d 746, 747 (9th

16

Cir. 1969), even if the federal constitutional question raised by the

17

habeas corpus petitioner cannot be resolved in a pending state appeal,

18

that appeal may result in the reversal of the petitioner’s conviction on

19

some other ground, thereby mooting the federal question.

20

Sherwood, 716 F.2d at 634 (footnote and remaining citations omitted).

21

Other courts in this Circuit also have applied the Sherwood dismissal rule

22

where the petitioner had a state habeas petition pending. See, e.g., Lockhart v.

23

Hedgpeth, 2008 WL 2260674, **1 (N.D. Cal. 2008); Craft v. Sisko, 2008 WL

24

906438, *1-*2 (C.D. Cal. 2008); McDade v. Board of Corrections, 2007 WL

25

3146736, *1 (N.D. Cal. 2007); Hancock v. Marshall, 2007 WL 1521002, *1 (N.D.

26

Cal. 2007); Kilgore v. Malfi, 2007 WL 1471293, *2-*3 (N.D. Cal. 2007).

27

///

28

///
3

1

Therefore, the Petition is subject to dismissal. Petitioner filed his now

2

pending appeal and habeas petition in the California Court of Appeal within the

3

past few months. Therefore, the instant, unexhausted, Petition has been filed

4

prematurely in this Court. Petitioner may file a fully exhausted petition

5

containing his claims after the state courts decide petitioner’s pending claims.

6

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that this action be summarily dismissed

7

without prejudice, pursuant to Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases

8

in the United States District Courts.

9

LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY.

10
11

Dated: 8/11/15

12
___________________________
JOHN A. KRONSTADT
United States District Judge

13
14
15
16

Presented by:

17
18
19

/S/ FREDERICK F. MUMM
FREDERICK F. MUMM
United States Magistrate Judge

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4