Reginald Batiste v. Longoria

Filing 6

ORDER DISMISSING HABEAS CORPUS PETITION AND DENYING CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY by Judge Stephen V. Wilson. Petitioner also fails to state a federal claim. The Court can only grant a writ of habeas corpus if a petitioner can show that the state court violated the federal Constitution or federal law. (See document for further details.) (sbou)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

REGINALD BATISTE,

11

Petitioner,

12
13

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

v.
MORALES, DIRECTOR,

14

Respondent.

CASE NO. CV 17-840-SVW (PJW)
ORDER DISMISSING HABEAS CORPUS
PETITION AND DENYING CERTIFICATE
OF APPEALABILITY

15
16

Before the Court is a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus under 28

17

U.S.C. § 2254, in which Petitioner is challenging the Los Angeles

18

County Superior Court’s August 2016 order committing him to Atascadero

19

State Hospital for one year.

20

is being held there unlawfully.

(Petition at 2-3.)

He contends that he

(Petition at 3-4.)

21

Because it appeared from the face of the Petition that Petitioner

22

had not presented his claims to the California Supreme Court or raised

23

a federal claim (see Petition at 2-6), on February 3, 2017, the Court

24

issued an order to show cause why the Petition should not be

25

dismissed.1

On February 21, 2017, Petitioner filed a response.

26
27
28

1

The Court pointed out that Petitioner had failed to name the
proper Respondent. In his Response, Petitioner named hospital
director Morales, who is substituted for Judge Longoria, pursuant to
Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 25(d).

1
2
3

For the following reasons, the Petition is dismissed without
prejudice.
The Court has a duty to screen habeas corpus petitions before

4

ordering service on a respondent.

5

656 (2005).

6

petition that a petitioner is not entitled to relief, the Court can

7

dismiss the petition at the outset.

8

§ 2254 Cases.

9

See Mayle v. Felix, 545 U.S. 644,

In doing so, if it plainly appears from the face of a

See Rule 4, Rules Governing

As a matter of comity between state and federal courts, a federal

10

court will generally not address the merits of a habeas corpus

11

petition unless a petitioner has first exhausted his state remedies by

12

presenting his claims to the highest court of the state.

13

§ 2254(b); Rose v. Lundy, 455 U.S. 509, 522 (1982); see also Cooper v.

14

Neven, 641 F.3d 322, 326 (9th Cir. 2011).

15

Petitioner has not presented his claims to the California Supreme

16

Court (or the Court of Appeal), the Petition is unexhausted and

17

subject to dismissal.

18

(9th Cir. 2006) (“Once a district court determines that a habeas

19

petition contains only unexhausted claims, it need not inquire further

20

as to the petitioner’s intentions.

21

habeas petition for failure to exhaust.”).

22

28 U.S.C.

Because it is clear that

See Rasberry v. Garcia, 448 F.3d 1150, 1154

Instead, it may simply dismiss the

Petitioner also fails to state a federal claim.

The Court can

23

only grant a writ of habeas corpus if a petitioner can show that the

24

state court violated the federal Constitution or federal law.

25

Swarthout v. Cooke, 562 U.S. 216, 219 (2011).

26

that his conviction is unwarranted and that he was illegally sent to

27

Atascadero.

28

involved in his case is now serving a federal prison sentence and that

Petitioner contends

He claims, among other things, that one of the officers

2

1

a report used to sentence him is “a bunch of lies.”

2

These claims do not sufficiently allege a violation of federal law.

3

Nevertheless, because Petitioner may be able to amend his claims later

4

on to state a federal violation, the Court will dismiss the Petition

5

without prejudice.

6

(Petition at 3.)

Finally, because Petitioner has not made a substantial showing of

7

the denial of a constitutional right, a certificate of appealability

8

will not issue in this action.

9

App. P. 22(b); Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336 (2003).

10

IT IS SO ORDERED

11

See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2); Fed. R.

DATED: June 7, 2017.

12
13
14

STEPHEN V. WILSON
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

15
16
Presented by:
17
18
19
20

PATRICK J. WALSH
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

C:\Users\pcruz\AppData\Local\Temp\notes97E53A\prop order dismissing.wpd

3