San Nicolas v. Ayers

Filing 134

ORDER REMANDING Petitioner's Sealed Claim to the California Supreme Court for Clarification With Specific Questions, signed by District Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 8/28/14. (Hellings, J)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

8
9
10

RODNEY JESSE SAN NICOLAS,

11
12
13
14

Case No. 1:06-cv-00942-LJO-SAB

Petitioner,
v.
ROBERT L. AYERS, JR., Warden of
California State Prison at San Quentin.,

ORDER REMANDING PETITIONER'S
SEALED CLAIM TO THE CALIFORNIA
SUPREME COURT FOR CLARIFICATION
WITH SPECIFIC QUESTIONS

Respondent.

15
16
17

On January 16, 2008, Petitioner Rodney Jesse San Nicolas filed in this Court an amended

18
19
20

petition for habeas corpus containing 37 claims and an addendum petition setting forth three claims
that Petitioner sought to file under seal. On the same day, he publicly filed with the California

21

Supreme Court an exhaustion petition for writ of habeas corpus setting forth 37 claims and lodged

22

under seal a three-claim addendum petition, accompanied by a motion to seal. On April 9, 2008,

23

the California Supreme Court denied Petitioner's motion to file the addendum petition under seal,

24

and returned the addendum petition and its exhibits to Petitioner unfiled. See California Supreme

25
Court Docket No. 160078, April 9, 2008. The Court provided no explanation of its denial of the
26
27

motion to seal.

28
1

1

On February 11, 2014, the California Supreme Court denied the 37-claim exhaustion

2

petition. Accordingly, on February 20, 2014, this Court ordered Respondent to answer the federal

3

petition.

4
5
6

On March 17, 2014, Respondent moved to dismiss the federal petition based on Petitioner's
failure to present fairly to the California Supreme Court, and thus exhaust, the claims that Petitioner
had sought to seal in the addendum petition that had been rejected in the state court. Petitioner

7
opposed the motion, contending that the review of his motion to seal three claims set forth in an
8
9
10
11
12
13
14

addendum petition offered the California Supreme Court a full and fair opportunity to address and
resolve the claim on the merits.
The matter was referred to the Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and
Local Rule 302. On May 9, 2014, the Magistrate Judge filed findings and recommendations
recommending that the Court grant Respondent's motion to dismiss the petition because of the
mixed claims. The Magistrate Judge reasoned that, in the absence of an order of the California

15
16
17
18
19
20
21

Supreme Court's articulating the nature of its review of Petitioner's motion to seal certain claims,
this Court could not conclude that the California courts had full and fair notice of Petitioner's claims
and an opportunity to rule on them.
Petitioner filed objections on May 23, 2014, disagreeing with the Magistrate Judge and
arguing that the Petitioner's first sealed claim was fully exhausted within the meaning of 28 U.S.C.
§ 2254(b)(1)(A), or in the alternative, excused under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(1)(B). In accordance

22
with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this Court has conducted a de novo review of the
23
24

case record and applicable law, and declines to adopt or reject the findings and recommendations.

25

Instead, this Court remands the matter back to the State Supreme Court with limited and specific

26

questions in the interest of judicial economy for both courts.

27
28
2

A petitioner who is in state custody and wishes to challenge collaterally his conviction by a

1
2

petition for writ of habeas corpus must first exhaust state judicial remedies. 28 U.S.C. §

3

2254(b)(1). Based on comity to the state court, the exhaustion requirement gives the state court the

4

initial opportunity to correct the state's alleged constitutional deprivations. Coleman v. Thompson,

5

501 U.S. 722, 731 (1991); Rose v. Lundy, 455 U.S. 509, 518 (1982); Buffalo v. Sunn, 854 F.2d

6

1158, 1163 (9th Cir. 1988).

To satisfy the exhaustion requirement, the petitioner must give the

7
highest state court a full and fair opportunity to consider each claim before he or she presents it to
8
9

the federal court. Duncan v. Henry, 513 U.S. 364, 365 (1995); Picard v. Connor, 404 U.S. 270, 276

10

(1971); Johnson v. Zenon, 88 F.3d 828, 829 (9th Cir. 1996). The exhaustion requirement is

11

intended to channel claims into an appropriate forum, where meritorious claims may be vindicated

12

and unfounded litigation obviated before resort to federal court. Keeney v. Tamayo-Reyes, 504

13
14

U.S. 1, 10 (1992), abrogated by statute on other grounds, Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 420, 421
(2000).

15
16
17

Whether a highest state court's denial of a motion to seal a petitioner's claim constitutes
exhaustion under federal law is a novel question. This Court declines to resolve the question on the

18

record that is now before it. Instead, to promote justice and judicial economy, this Court

19

REMANDS Petitioner's sealed claim one to the Supreme Court of the State of California for the

20

limited purpose of answering the following succinct questions:

21

1.

In denying Petitioner's motion to seal the three claims set forth in the addendum

22
petition, did the Court evaluate the motion according to the factors set forth in California Civil
23
24
25

Code § 2.550(d)? If not, what standards did the Court apply in determining to deny Petitioner's
motion to seal?

26
27
28
3

1

2.

Did the Court consider the merits of the claims that Plaintiff sought to seal? If the

2

Court did not consider the merits of the claims that Petitioner sought to seal, did the Court have the

3

discretion to do so? If so, why did the Court elect not to consider the claims' merits?

4
5

3.

Was the Court's determination to deny Petitioner's motion to seal a purely procedural

matter? If so, what was the procedural basis for the Court's denial of Petitioner's motion to seal?

6
7
IT IS SO ORDERED.
8
9

Dated:

/s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill

August 28, 2014

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21

22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4