James Ambrosia Williams v. J Soto

Filing 6

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE by Magistrate Judge Jacqueline Chooljian.In light of petitioner's inconsistent indications as to whether or not he has raised his two current claims in the California Supreme Court, and the apparent absence of any indication from the dockets of the California Supreme Court that he has done so, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that within fourteen (14) days of the date of this order, petitioner shall show cause, in writing, why this action should not be dismissed without prejudice for failure to exhaust state remedies, that is, the failure to present to, and have his claims resolved by the California Supreme Court. See order for details. (hr)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

JAMES AMBROSIA WILLIAMS,

12
13
14
15
16
17

Petitioner,
v.
J. SOTO, Warden,
Respondent.

) Case No. EDCV 15-1059 VAP(JC)
)
)
) ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE
)
)
)
)
)
)

On May 29, 2015, petitioner James Ambrosia Williams (“petitioner”) filed a

18 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person in State Custody (“Petition”)
19 challenging petitioner’s 2013 conviction in San Bernardino County Superior
20 Court. It appears from the Petition – which is internally inconsistent – and matters
21 as to which this Court takes judicial notice, that petitioner’s claims have not
22 previously been presented to the California Supreme Court.
23
A federal court will not grant a state prisoner’s petition for writ of habeas
24 corpus unless it appears that the prisoner has exhausted available state remedies.
25 28 U.S.C. §§ 2254(b), (c); O’Sullivan v. Boerckel, 526 U.S. 838, 842 (1999);
26 Park v. California, 202 F.3d 1146, 1150 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 531 U.S. 918
27 (2000). “For reasons of federalism, 28 U.S.C. § 2254 requires federal courts to
28 give the states an initial opportunity to correct alleged violations of its prisoners’
1

1 federal rights.” Kellotat v. Cupp, 719 F.2d 1027, 1029 (9th Cir. 1983) (citation
2 omitted). A federal court may raise exhaustion problems sua sponte. See Stone v.
3 San Francisco, 968 F.2d 850, 856 (9th Cir. 1992), cert. denied, 506 U.S. 1081
4 (1993) (citing Granberry v. Greer, 481 U.S. 129, 134 (1987)).
5

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

6 highest court of the state. James v. Borg, 24 F.3d 20, 24 (9th Cir.), cert. denied,
7 513 U.S. 935 (1994). A claim has not been fairly presented unless the prisoner has
8 described in the state court proceedings both the operative facts and the federal
9 legal theory on which his claim is based. See Duncan v. Henry, 513 U.S. 364,
10 365-66 (1995); Anderson v. Harless, 459 U.S. 4, 6 (1982); Weaver v. Thompson,
11 197 F.3d 359, 364 (9th Cir. 1999).
12

Petitioner has the burden of demonstrating he has exhausted available state

13 remedies. See, e.g., Matthews v. Evatt, 105 F.3d 907, 911 (4th Cir. 1997), cert.
14 denied, 522 U.S. 833 (1997); Keating v. Hood, 922 F. Supp. 1482, 1490 (C.D.
15 Cal. 1996), app. dismissed on other grounds, 133 F.3d 1240 (9th Cir. 1998). Once
16 a court determines that a habeas petition contains only unexhausted claims, it may
17 dismiss the petition for failure to exhaust. Rasberry v. Garcia, 448 F.3d 1150,
18 1154 (9th Cir. 2006).
19

Here, as noted above, petitioner challenges a 2013 conviction in San

20 Bernardino County Superior Court. The Petition reflects that petitioner did not file
21 a petition for review in the California Supreme Court. (Petition at 3). The Petition
22 also reflects that petitioner filed a single habeas petition and that such petition was
23 filed in the San Bernardino County Superior Court. (Petition at 3-4).
24 Consistently, the dockets of the California Supreme Court available via
25 http://appellatecases.courtinfo. ca.gov, do not reflect that petitioner has ever sought
26 relief from such court. Nonetheless, in stating his grounds for relief, petitioner
27 inconsistently checks boxes asserting that he raised his two claims in a habeas
28 petition to the California Supreme Court. (Petition at 5-6).
2

1

In light of petitioner’s inconsistent indications as to whether or not he has

2 raised his two current claims in the California Supreme Court, and the apparent
3 absence of any indication from the dockets of the California Supreme Court that he
4 has done so, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that within fourteen (14) days of the date
5 of this order, petitioner shall show cause, in writing, why this action should not be
6 dismissed without prejudice for failure to exhaust state remedies, that is, the failure
7 to present to, and have his claims resolved by the California Supreme Court. If
8 petitioner contends that he has, in fact, presented his claims to the California
9 Supreme Court and that such court has ruled thereon, his response to this Order to
10 Show Cause shall indicate how and when petitioner raised his claims with the
11 California Supreme Court (including any name variation he used if different than
12 James Ambrosia Williams), shall include the date of the California Supreme
13 Court’s decision regarding his claims and the case number, and shall attach a copy
14 of such decision, if it is available.
15 DATED: June 15, 2015
16
17
18

______________/s/___________________
Honorable Jacqueline Chooljian
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3