Maria Manuelita Ayon v. Deborah Johnson

Filing 5

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE by Magistrate Judge Karen E. Scott. IT THEREFORE IS ORDERED that, on or before June 16, 2016, Petitioner show cause in writing, if any she has, why the Court should not recommend that the Petition be dismissed without prejudice for failure to exhaust state remedies. Further, Petitioner is cautioned that her failure to timely file a response to this Order to Show Cause will result in a recommendation that the action be dismissed without prejudice not only for the reasons discussed above, but also for failure to prosecute. (see document for details). (dro)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
10
11

MARIA MANUELITA AYON,

12

Petitioner,

13
14
15

vs.
DEBORAH JOHNSON,
Warden,
Respondent.

16
17

) Case No. EDCV 16-00961-CAS (KES)
)
)
) ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE
)
)
)
)
)
)

Petitioner, represented by counsel, filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus

18 By A Person In State Custody pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 on May 11, 2016. (Dkt.
19 1.) Petitioner was convicted by a jury in the Riverside County Superior Court of first
20 degree murder in violation of Penal Code (“PC”) § 187(a) and conspiracy to commit
21 murder in violation of PC § 182(a)(1). The jury also found true a special circumstance
22 allegation that the murder was committed by lying in wait in violation of PC
23 § 190.2(a)(15) and that Petitioner personally discharged a firearm in violation of PC
24 § 12022.53(d). On January 2, 2013, Petitioner was sentenced to life in prison without
25 the possibility of parole. (Id. at 2.)1
26

Petitioner has raised seven grounds for relief: (1) Magistrate erred in

27
28

1

All page citations to the Petition are to the CM/ECF docket.
1

1 instructing the jury via judicial notice that Mariscal was discharged after testifying;
2 trial/appellate counsel rendered ineffective assistance of counsel in violation of the
3 Fifth, Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments; (2) the case should be reversed because the
4 prosecutor concealed Brady2 material consisting of a secret immunity deal with
5 Marsical and letters to ICE in violation of the Fifth, Sixth and Fourteenth
6 Amendments; (3) the prosecutor’s prejudicial misconduct during closing deprived
7 Petitioner of due process and a fair trial; trial and appellate counsel rendered
8 ineffective assistance of counsel in violation of the Fifth, Sixth and Fourteenth
9 Amendments; (4) the trial court deprived Petitioner of due process and a fair trial by
10 failing to issue accomplice as a matter of law instructions; trial and appellate counsel
11 rendered ineffective assistance of counsel in violation of the Fifth, Sixth and
12 Fourteenth Amendments; (5) the combination of errors in grounds one through three
13 rendered Petitioner’s trial fundamentally unfair in violation of the Fifth, Sixth and
14 Fourteenth Amendments; (6) the trial court erred in permitting Detective Brian Reno
15 to offer an opinion as an expert that the shots were fired from behind and to the right
16 of the driver’s seat in violation in violation of the Fifth, Sixth and Fourteenth
17 Amendments; and (7) the trial court erred in failing to fully instruct the jury with the
18 lesser included offense of unpremeditated second degree murder in violation of the
19 Fifth, Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments. (Dkt. 1 at 5-8, Dkt. 1-1 at 25-97.)
20

The Court’s review of the Petition reveals that it suffers from the following

21 deficiencies.
22

First, Petitioner’s claims are not fully exhausted. Petitioner alleges that she did

23 not raise the claims contained in Grounds One through Five on direct appeal, in her
24 Petition for Review or in any habeas petition. (Dkt. 1 at 5-8.) Under 28 U.S.C. §
25 2254(b), habeas relief may not be granted unless Petitioner has exhausted the
26
27
28

2

Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963).
2

1 remedies available in the courts of the State.3 Exhaustion requires that the prisoner’s
2 contentions be fairly presented to the state courts, and be disposed of on the merits
3 by the highest court of the state. See James v. Borg, 24 F.3d 20, 24 (9th Cir.), cert.
4 denied, 513 U.S. 935 (1994); Carothers v. Rhay, 594 F.2d 225, 228 (9th Cir. 1979).
5 A claim has not been fairly presented unless the prisoner has described in the state
6 court proceedings both the operative facts and the federal legal theory on which his
7 claim is based. Duncan v. Henry, 513 U.S. 364, 365-66 (1995); Picard v. Connor,
8 404 U.S. 270, 275-78 (1971); Davis v. Silva, 511 F.3d 1005, 1009 (9th Cir. 2008).
9 “[T]he exhaustion doctrine is designed to give the state courts a full and fair
10 opportunity to resolve federal constitutional claims before these claims are presented
11 to the federal courts.” O’Sullivan v. Boerckel, 526 U.S. 838, 845 (1999).
12

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

13 petition unless the petitioner has exhausted the available state judicial remedies on
14 every ground presented in the petition. Rose v. Lundy, 455 U.S. 509, 518-22 (1982).
15 Petitioner has the burden of demonstrating that she has exhausted available state
16 remedies. See, e.g., Brown v. Cuyler, 669 F.2d 155, 158 (3d Cir. 1982).
17

The inclusion of Grounds One through Five renders the Petition subject to

18 dismissal without prejudice as a “mixed petition.”
19

The Supreme Court follows a rule of “total exhaustion,” requiring that all

20 claims in a habeas petition be exhausted before a federal court may grant the petition.
21 Rose, 455 U.S. at 522. Pursuant to the Anti–Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty
22 Act of 1996 (“AEDPA”), all federal habeas petitions are subject to a one-year statute
23
24

3

The habeas statute now explicitly provides that a habeas petition brought by
25 a person in state custody “shall not be granted unless it appears that-- (A) the
26 applicant has exhausted the remedies available in the courts of the State; or (B)(i)
there is an absence of available State corrective process; or (ii) circumstances exist
27
that render such process ineffective to protect the rights of the applicant.” 28 U.S.C.
28 § 2254(b)(1).
3

1 of limitations, and claims not exhausted and presented to the federal court within the
2 one-year period are forfeited. 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d). Generally, a court may not
3 consider a “mixed” habeas petition, that is a petition that contains or seeks to present
4 both exhausted and unexhausted claims. Rose, 455 U.S. at 522. If a petitioner
5 presents a mixed petition, the petitioner may seek to stay the exhausted claims while
6 she pursues the unexhausted claims in state court. Rhines v. Weber, 544 U.S. 269,
7 278 (2005). Case law has established two alternative procedures for seeking and
8 obtaining a stay, which are set forth in Rhines and Kelly v. Small, 315 F.3d 1063 (9th
9 Cir. 2003), overruled on other grounds by, Robbins v. Carey, 481 F.3d 1143 (9th Cir.
10 2007). See King v. Ryan, 564 F.3d 1133, 1135 (9th Cir. 2009).
11

The Court notes that Petitioner has not requested that the Court hold the Petition

12 in abeyance while she returns to state court to exhaust her state remedies with respect
13 to Grounds One through Five, nor has she purported to make the necessary showing
14 of good cause for her failure to exhaust those claims first in the state court.4
15

IT THEREFORE IS ORDERED that, on or before June 16, 2016, Petitioner

16 show cause in writing, if any she has, why the Court should not recommend that the
17 Petition be dismissed without prejudice for failure to exhaust state remedies.
18 Further, Petitioner is cautioned that her failure to timely file a response to this Order
19 //
20 //
21 //
22 //
23 //
24 //
25
4

Petitioner would also have to satisfy two other prerequisites to invoking the
stay and abeyance procedure, namely convince the Court (a) that her unexhausted
27
claims are not “plainly meritless,” and (b) that she has not engaged in “abusive
28 litigation tactics or intentional delay.” Rhines, 544 U.S. at 277-78.
26

4

1 to Show Cause will result in a recommendation that the action be dismissed without
2 prejudice not only for the reasons discussed above, but also for failure to prosecute.
3
4 DATED: May 17, 2016
5
6
7

KAREN E. SCOTT
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
5