Beard v. People of The State of California

Filing 14

ORDER DISCHARGING the 12 Order to Show Cause that Issued on September 16, 2010; ORDER DIRECTING Petitioner to Withdraw his Unexhausted Claim within Thirty (30) Days of Service or Suffer Dismissal of the Action signed by Magistrate Judge Sheila K. Oberto on 11/3/2010. Withdraw of Unexhausted Claim by 12/6/2010. (Sant Agata, S)

(HC) Beard v. People of The State of California

Doc. 14

1 2 3 4 5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
6 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 7 8 9 10 v. 11 RANDY GROUNDS, 12 Respondent. 13 14 15 Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in 16 forma pauperis with a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant 17 to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 18 Petitioner has consented to the jurisdiction of the United States 19 Magistrate Judge to conduct all further proceedings in the case, 20 including the entry of final judgment, by manifesting consent in 21 a signed writing filed by Petitioner on October 13, 2009 (doc. 22 3.) 23 October 5, 2010, and amended to reflect the proper Respondent on 24 September 16, 2010. 25 I. 26 On September 16, 2010, the Court issued an order to 27 Petitioner to show cause why the petition should not be dismissed 28 1
Dockets.Justia.com

ANTHONY MARCEL BEARD, Petitioner,

) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

1:09-cv--01750-SKO-HC ORDER DISCHARGING THE ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE THAT ISSUED ON SEPTEMBER 16, 2010 (Doc. 12) ORDER DIRECTING PETITIONER TO WITHDRAW HIS UNEXHAUSTED CLAIM WITHIN THIRTY (30) DAYS OF SERVICE OR SUFFER DISMISSAL OF THE ACTION DEADLINE: THIRTY (30) DAYS

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c)(1),

Pending before the Court is the petition, which was filed on

Discharge of the Order to Show Cause

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

for Petitioner's failure to exhaust state remedies with respect to his claims. same date. On October 1, 2010, Petitioner filed a response to the order to show cause. discharged. II. Petitioner's Failure to Exhaust State Remedies with Respect to Some Claims Accordingly, the order to show cause will be The order was served by mail on Petitioner on the

Petitioner alleges the following claims in the petition: 9 1) a great bodily injury enhancement could not lawfully be 10 refiled after it was twice dismissed (Pet. 4)1; 2) there was 11 insufficient evidence to sustain the great bodily injury 12 enhancement (Pet. 4); 3) trial counsel rendered ineffective 13 assistance by failing to raise an issue concerning two 14 dismissals, failing to object to the out-of-court testimony of 15 witness Attaway at a preliminary hearing, and depriving 16 Petitioner of meaningful cross-examination (Pet. 5); and 4) 17 Petitioner was deprived of his rights to confront the witnesses 18 against him, due process of law, right to a fair trial, and the 19 right to present a defense by the admission of Attaway's 20 preliminary hearing testimony, a 9-1-1 tape, and a statement made 21 to police (Pet. 5). 22 in the California Supreme Court, which Petitioner filed in 23 response to the order to show cause, reflects that claims 1, 2, 24 and 4 were raised in the California Supreme Court and thus were 25 exhausted. 26 27 28
Page references are to the numbers appearing in the upper right-hand c o r n e r s of filed documents that are automatically assigned by the Court's e l e c t r o n i c filing system.
1

Reference to the petition for review filed

Claim 3, however, which concerns the alleged

2

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

ineffective assistance of counsel, was not raised in the California Supreme Court. (Doc. 13, 6-7, 15-25.) Thus,

Petitioner failed to exhaust his state court remedies as to his third claim concerning the alleged ineffective assistance of counsel. A petitioner who is in state custody and wishes to challenge collaterally a conviction by a petition for writ of habeas corpus must exhaust state judicial remedies. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(1).

The exhaustion doctrine is based on comity to the state court and gives the state court the initial opportunity to correct the state's alleged constitutional deprivations. Coleman v.

Thompson, 501 U.S. 722, 731 (1991); Rose v. Lundy, 455 U.S. 509, 518 (1982); Buffalo v. Sunn, 854 F.2d 1158, 1162-63 (9th Cir. 1988). A petitioner can satisfy the exhaustion requirement by providing the highest state court with the necessary jurisdiction a full and fair opportunity to consider each claim before presenting it to the federal court, and demonstrating that no state remedy remains available. Picard v. Connor, 404 U.S. 270,

275-76 (1971); Johnson v. Zenon, 88 F.3d 828, 829 (9th Cir. 1996). A federal court will find that the highest state court

was given a full and fair opportunity to hear a claim if the petitioner has presented the highest state court with the claim's factual and legal basis. Duncan v. Henry, 513 U.S. 364, 365

(1995) (legal basis); Kenney v. Tamayo-Reyes, 504 U.S. 1, 9-10 (1992), superceded by statute as stated in Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362 (2000) (factual basis). Additionally, the petitioner must have specifically told the 3

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

state court that he was raising a federal constitutional claim. Duncan, 513 U.S. at 365-66; Lyons v. Crawford, 232 F.3d 666, 669 (9th Cir. 2000), amended, 247 F.3d 904 (9th Cir. 2001); Hiivala v. Wood, 195 F.3d 1098, 1106 (9th Cir. 1999); Keating v. Hood, 133 F.3d 1240, 1241 (9th Cir. 1998). In Duncan, the United

States Supreme Court reiterated the rule as follows: In Picard v. Connor, 404 U.S. 270, 275...(1971), we said that exhaustion of state remedies requires that petitioners "fairly presen[t]" federal claims to the state courts in order to give the State the "'opportunity to pass upon and correct' alleged violations of the prisoners' federal rights" (some internal quotation marks omitted). If state courts are to be given the opportunity to correct alleged violations of prisoners' federal rights, they must surely be alerted to the fact that the prisoners are asserting claims under the United States Constitution. If a habeas petitioner wishes to claim that an evidentiary ruling at a state court trial denied him the due process of law guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment, he must say so, not only in federal court, but in state court. Duncan, 513 U.S. at 365-366. The Ninth Circuit examined the rule

16 further in Lyons v. Crawford, 232 F.3d 666, 668-69 (9th Cir. 17 2000), as amended by Lyons v. Crawford, 247 F.3d 904, 904-05 (9th 18 Cir. 2001), stating: 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Our rule is that a state prisoner has not "fairly presented" (and thus exhausted) his federal claims in state court unless he specifically indicated to that court that those claims were based on federal law. See, Shumway v. Payne, 223 F.3d 982, 987-88 (9th Cir. 2000). Since the Supreme Court's decision in Duncan, this court has held that the petitioner must make the federal basis of the claim explicit either by citing federal law or the decisions of federal courts, even if the federal basis is "self-evident," Gatlin v. Madding, 189 F.3d 882, 889 (9th Cir. 1999) (citing Anderson v. Harless, 459 U.S. 4, 7... (1982), or the underlying claim would be decided under state law on the same considerations that would control resolution of the claim on federal grounds, see, e.g., Hiivala v. Wood, 195 F.3d 1098, 1106-07 (9th Cir. 1999); Johnson v. Zenon, 88 F.3d 828, 830-31 (9th Cir. 1996); Crotts, 73 F.3d at 865. 4

1 2 3 4

... In Johnson, we explained that the petitioner must alert the state court to the fact that the relevant claim is a federal one without regard to how similar the state and federal standards for reviewing the claim may be or how obvious the violation of federal law is. Lyons v. Crawford, 232 F.3d 666, 668-69 (9th Cir. 2000), as

5 amended by Lyons v. Crawford, 247 F.3d 904, 904-05 (9th Cir. 6 2001). 7 Where none of a petitioner's claims has been presented to 8 the highest state court as required by the exhaustion doctrine, 9 the Court must dismiss the petition. 10 F.3d 1150, 1154 (9th Cir. 2006); Jiminez v. Rice, 276 F.3d 478, 11 481 (9th Cir. 2001). 12 and others are not (i.e., a "mixed" petition), the Court must 13 dismiss the petition without prejudice to give Petitioner an 14 opportunity to exhaust the claims if he can do so. 15 U.S. at 510, 521-22; Calderon v. United States Dist. Court 16 (Gordon), 107 F.3d 756, 760 (9th Cir. 1997), en banc, cert. 17 denied, 118 S.Ct. 265 (1997); Greenawalt v. Stewart, 105 F.3d 18 1268, 1273 (9th Cir. 1997), cert. denied, 117 S.Ct. 1794 (1997). 19 However, the Court must give a petitioner an opportunity to amend 20 a mixed petition to delete the unexhausted claims and permit 21 review of properly exhausted claims. 22 520; Calderon v. United States Dist. Ct. (Taylor), 134 F.3d 981, 23 986 (9th Cir. 1998), cert. denied, 525 U.S. 920 (1998); James v. 24 Giles, 221 F.3d 1074, 1077 (9th Cir. 2000). 25 The instant petition is a mixed petition containing 26 exhausted and unexhausted claims. 27 petition without prejudice unless Petitioner withdraws the 28 5 The Court must dismiss the Rose v. Lundy, 455 U.S. at Rose, 455 Further, where some claims are exhausted Raspberry v. Garcia, 448

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

unexhausted claim and proceeds with the exhausted claims in lieu of suffering dismissal. III. Disposition

Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that: 1) The order to show cause that issued on September 16,

2010, is DISCHARGED; and 2) Petitioner is GRANTED thirty (30) days from the date of

service of this order to file a motion to withdraw the unexhausted claim. In the event Petitioner does not file such a

motion, the Court will assume Petitioner desires to return to state court to exhaust the unexhausted claim and will therefore dismiss the Petition without prejudice.2

IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: ie14hj November 3, 2010 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Petitioner is informed that a dismissal for failure to exhaust will not i t s e l f bar him from returning to federal court after exhausting his available s t a t e remedies. However, this does not mean that Petitioner will not be s u b j e c t to the one-year statute of limitations imposed by 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d). Although the limitations period is tolled while a properly filed request for c o l l a t e r a l review is pending in state court, 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(2), it is not t o l l e d for the time an application is pending in federal court. Duncan v. W a l k e r , 533 U.S. 167, 172 (2001). P e t i t i o n e r is further informed that the Supreme Court has held in p e r t i n e n t part: [ I ] n the habeas corpus context it would be appropriate f o r an order dismissing a mixed petition to instruct a n applicant that upon his return to federal court he is to b r i n g only exhausted claims. See Fed. Rules Civ. Proc. 41(a) a n d (b). Once the petitioner is made aware of the exhaustion r e q u i r e m e n t , no reason exists for him not to exhaust all potential c l a i m s before returning to federal court. The failure to comply w i t h an order of the court is grounds for dismissal with prejudice. F e d . Rules Civ. Proc. 41(b). Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 489 (2000). Therefore, Petitioner is forewarned that in the event he returns to federal c o u r t and files a mixed petition of exhausted and unexhausted claims, the p e t i t i o n may be dismissed with prejudice.

2

6