Valencia v. Martel
Filing
7
ORDER to Petitioner to SHOW CAUSE in Thirty (30) Days Why the Petition Should Not Be Dismissed For Petitioner's Failure to Exhaust State Remedies; ORDER GRANTING Petitioner Leave to File a Motion to Amend the Petition and Name a Proper Respondent No Later Than Thirty (30) Days After the Date of Service of This Order, signed by Magistrate Judge Sheila K. Oberto on 6/29/2011. Show Cause Response and Motion to Amend due by 8/1/2011. (Marrujo, C)
1
2
3
4
5
6
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
7
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
9
10
DAVID J. VALENCIA, JR.,
11
Petitioner,
12
v.
13
14
DIRECTOR OF CORRECTIONS AND
REHABILITATION,
15
Respondent.
16
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
17
1:11-cv—01066-SKO-HC
ORDER TO PETITIONER TO SHOW CAUSE
IN THIRTY (30) DAYS WHY THE
PETITION SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED
FOR PETITIONER’S FAILURE TO
EXHAUST STATE REMEDIES
(Doc. 1)
ORDER GRANTING PETITIONER LEAVE
TO FILE A MOTION TO AMEND THE
PETITION AND NAME A PROPER
RESPONDENT NO LATER THAN THIRTY
(30) DAYS AFTER THE DATE OF
SERVICE OF THIS ORDER (Doc. 1)
18
Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a
19
petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254.
20
The matter has been referred to the Magistrate Judge pursuant to
21
28 U.S.C.§ 636(b)(1) and Local Rules 302 and 303.
Pending before
22
the Court is Petitioner’s petition, which was filed on June 22,
23
2011, and transferred to this Court on June
27, 2011.
24
I.
Screening the Petition
25
Rule 4 of the Rules Governing § 2254 Cases in the United
26
States District Courts (Habeas Rules) requires the Court to make
27
a preliminary review of each petition for writ of habeas corpus.
28
1
1
The Court must summarily dismiss a petition "[i]f it plainly
2
appears from the petition and any attached exhibits that the
3
petitioner is not entitled to relief in the district court....”
4
Habeas Rule 4; O’Bremski v. Maass, 915 F.2d 418, 420 (9th Cir.
5
1990); see also Hendricks v. Vasquez, 908 F.2d 490 (9th Cir.
6
1990).
7
grounds of relief available to the Petitioner; 2) state the facts
8
supporting each ground; and 3) state the relief requested.
9
Notice pleading is not sufficient; rather, the petition must
Habeas Rule 2(c) requires that a petition 1) specify all
10
state facts that point to a real possibility of constitutional
11
error.
12
O’Bremski v. Maass, 915 F.2d at 420 (quoting Blackledge v.
13
Allison, 431 U.S. 63, 75 n. 7 (1977)).
14
that are vague, conclusory, or palpably incredible are subject to
15
summary dismissal.
16
Cir. 1990).
17
Rule 4, Advisory Committee Notes, 1976 Adoption;
Allegations in a petition
Hendricks v. Vasquez, 908 F.2d 490, 491 (9th
Further, the Court may dismiss a petition for writ of habeas
18
corpus either on its own motion under Habeas Rule 4, pursuant to
19
the respondent's motion to dismiss, or after an answer to the
20
petition has been filed.
21
8, 1976 Adoption; see, Herbst v. Cook, 260 F.3d 1039, 1042-43
22
(9th Cir. 2001).
Advisory Committee Notes to Habeas Rule
23
II.
24
A petitioner who is in state custody and wishes to challenge
25
collaterally a conviction by a petition for writ of habeas corpus
26
must exhaust state judicial remedies.
27
The exhaustion doctrine is based on comity to the state court and
28
gives the state court the initial opportunity to correct the
Exhaustion of State Court Remedies
2
28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(1).
1
state's alleged constitutional deprivations.
2
Thompson, 501 U.S. 722, 731 (1991); Rose v. Lundy, 455 U.S. 509,
3
518 (1982); Buffalo v. Sunn, 854 F.2d 1158, 1162-63 (9th Cir.
4
1988).
Coleman v.
5
A petitioner can satisfy the exhaustion requirement by
6
providing the highest state court with the necessary jurisdiction
7
a full and fair opportunity to consider each claim before
8
presenting it to the federal court, and demonstrating that no
9
state remedy remains available.
Picard v. Connor, 404 U.S. 270,
10
275-76 (1971); Johnson v. Zenon, 88 F.3d 828, 829 (9th Cir.
11
1996).
12
was given a full and fair opportunity to hear a claim if the
13
petitioner has presented the highest state court with the claim's
14
factual and legal basis.
15
(1995) (legal basis); Kenney v. Tamayo-Reyes, 504 U.S. 1, 9-10
16
(1992), superceded by statute as stated in Williams v. Taylor,
17
529 U.S. 362 (2000) (factual basis).
18
A federal court will find that the highest state court
Duncan v. Henry, 513 U.S. 364, 365
Additionally, the petitioner must have specifically told the
19
state court that he was raising a federal constitutional claim.
20
Duncan, 513 U.S. at 365-66; Lyons v. Crawford, 232 F.3d 666, 669
21
(9th Cir. 2000), amended, 247 F.3d 904 (9th Cir. 2001); Hiivala
22
v. Wood, 195 F.3d 1098, 1106 (9th Cir. 1999); Keating v. Hood,
23
133 F.3d 1240, 1241 (9th Cir. 1998).
24
States Supreme Court reiterated the rule as follows:
25
26
27
28
In Duncan, the United
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
3
1
2
3
4
5
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.
6
Duncan, 513 U.S. at 365-366.
7
further in Lyons v. Crawford, 232 F.3d 666, 668-69 (9th Cir.
8
2000), as amended by Lyons v. Crawford, 247 F.3d 904, 904-05 (9th
9
Cir. 2001), stating:
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
The Ninth Circuit examined the rule
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.
...
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.
22
Lyons v. Crawford, 232 F.3d 666, 668-69 (9th Cir. 2000), as
23
amended by Lyons v. Crawford, 247 F.3d 904, 904-05 (9th Cir.
24
2001).
25
Where none of a petitioner’s claims has been presented to
26
the highest state court as required by the exhaustion doctrine,
27
the Court must dismiss the petition.
28
4
Raspberry v. Garcia, 448
1
F.3d 1150, 1154 (9th Cir. 2006); Jiminez v. Rice, 276 F.3d 478,
2
481 (9th Cir. 2001).
3
petition in abeyance pending exhaustion of the unexhausted claims
4
has not been extended to petitions that contain no exhausted
5
claims.
6
The authority of a court to hold a mixed
Raspberry, 448 F.3d at 1154.
Where some claims are exhausted and others are not (i.e., a
7
“mixed” petition), the Court must dismiss the petition without
8
prejudice to give Petitioner an opportunity to exhaust the
9
unexhausted claims if he can do so.
Rose, 455 U.S. at 510, 521-
10
22; Calderon v. United States Dist. Court (Gordon), 107 F.3d 756,
11
760 (9th Cir. 1997), en banc, cert. denied, 118 S.Ct. 265 (1997);
12
Greenawalt v. Stewart, 105 F.3d 1268, 1273 (9th
13
cert. denied, 117 S.Ct. 1794 (1997).
14
give a petitioner an opportunity to amend a mixed petition to
15
delete the unexhausted claims and permit review of properly
16
exhausted claims.
17
United States Dist. Ct. (Taylor), 134 F.3d 981, 986 (9th Cir.
18
1998), cert. denied, 525 U.S. 920 (1998); James v. Giles, 221
19
F.3d 1074, 1077 (9th Cir. 2000).
Cir. 1997),
However, the Court must
Rose v. Lundy, 455 U.S. at 520; Calderon v.
20
Here, Petitioner alleges that he is an inmate of the San
21
Quentin State Prison serving a sentence of twenty-five (25) years
22
to life imposed on January 6, 2010, in the Tuolumne County
23
Superior Court upon Petitioner’s conviction of corporal injury to
24
a spouse in violation of Cal. Pen. Code § 273.5(a).
25
raises the following claims in the petition:
26
court’s failure to instruct on the defense of necessity violated
27
his right to due process of law; 2) his trial counsel’s failure
28
to request an instruction on the necessity defense violated
5
Petitioner
1) the trial
1
Petitioner’s rights under the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments to
2
the effective assistance of counsel; and 3) the sentencing
3
court’s failure to strike at least one prior conviction resulted
4
in a sentence that was disproportionately severe and grossly
5
excessive in violation of Petitioner’s right to due process of
6
law.
7
(Pet. 6-11.)
With respect to these claims, Petitioner alleges that he
8
exhausted his state court remedies.
9
a copy of an order of the California Supreme Court denying a
Petitioner has also attached
10
petition for review on May 11, 2011.
11
Petitioner has exhausted his state court remedies.
12
It thus appears that
However, Petitioner also states that there is presently
13
pending in the state trial court a petition for writ of habeas
14
corpus.
15
ineffective assistance of counsel under the Sixth and Fourteenth
16
Amendments based on the trial court’s admission of unspecified
17
evidence concerning a nine-year-old matter involving a negotiated
18
disposition that was used to impeach witness Kendall Long.
19
13.)
20
petition form concerning whether the presently pending petition
21
is “for” the judgment he is challenging in the petition that is
22
before the Court.
This petition alleges violations of due process and
(Pet.
Petitioner responded affirmatively to a question on the
(Id.)
23
As to the claims concerning the impeachment evidence,
24
Petitioner states that he has not received a docket number yet
25
for his petition.
26
begun to exhaust his state court remedies as to these additional
27
claims concerning impeachment evidence, and thus he has not
28
exhausted his state court remedies concerning these claims.
Thus, it is clear that Petitioner has just
6
1
Therefore, upon review of the instant petition for writ of
2
habeas corpus, it appears that Petitioner has not presented his
3
claims concerning impeachment evidence to the California Supreme
4
Court.
5
California Supreme Court, the Court cannot proceed to the merits
6
of those claims.
7
however, that Petitioner has presented all his claims to the
8
California Supreme Court and has simply neglected to inform this
9
Court.
If Petitioner has not presented all of his claims to the
28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(1).
It is possible,
10
Thus, Petitioner must inform the Court if his claims
11
concerning the impeachment evidence have been presented to the
12
California Supreme Court, and if possible, provide the Court with
13
a copy of the petition filed in the California Supreme Court,
14
along with a copy of any ruling made by the California Supreme
15
Court.
16
III.
17
In this case, Petitioner named as Respondent the Director of
18
Corrections and Rehabilitation, which the Court understands to be
19
the Director of the California Department of Corrections and
20
Rehabilitation (CDCR).
Petitioner is incarcerated at the San
21
Quentin State Prison.
The warden at that facility is Michael
22
Martel.
23
Failure to Name Custodian as Respondent
A petitioner seeking habeas corpus relief under 28 U.S.C.
24
§ 2254 must name the state officer having custody of him as the
25
respondent to the petition.
26
Gomez, 81 F.3d 891, 894 (9th Cir. 1996); Stanley v. California
27
Supreme Court, 21 F.3d 359, 360 (9th Cir. 1994).
28
person having custody of an incarcerated petitioner is the warden
Habeas Rule 2(a); Ortiz-Sandoval v.
7
Normally, the
1
of the prison in which the petitioner is incarcerated because the
2
warden has "day-to-day control over" the petitioner and thus can
3
produce the petitioner.
4
378, 379 (9th Cir. 1992); see also, Stanley v. California Supreme
5
Court, 21 F.3d 359, 360 (9th Cir. 1994).
6
Brittingham v. United States, 982 F.2d
Petitioner’s failure to name a proper respondent could
7
require dismissal of his habeas petition for lack of
8
jurisdiction.
9
give Petitioner the opportunity to cure this defect by amending
10
the petition to name a proper respondent, such as the warden of
11
his facility.
12
2004).
13
file an amended petition.
14
entitled "Motion to Amend the Petition to Name a Proper
15
Respondent" wherein Petitioner may name the proper respondent in
16
this action.
17
IV.
18
Accordingly, it is ORDERED that:
19
1)
Stanley, 21 F.3d at 360.
However, the Court will
See, In re Morris, 363 F.3d 891, 893-94 (9th Cir.
In the interest of judicial economy, Petitioner need not
Instead, Petitioner may file a motion
Disposition
Petitioner is ORDERED to show cause why the petition
20
should not be dismissed for Petitioner’s failure to exhaust state
21
remedies as to all his claims.
22
the Court within thirty (30) days of the date of service of this
23
order whether or not his claims concerning impeachment evidence
24
have been presented to the California Supreme Court; and
25
2)
Petitioner is ORDERED to inform
Petitioner is GRANTED thirty (30) days from the date of
26
service of this order in which to file a motion to amend the
27
instant petition and name a proper respondent.
28
the petition and state a proper respondent may result in a
8
Failure to amend
1
recommendation that the petition be dismissed for lack of
2
jurisdiction.
3
Petitioner is forewarned that failure to follow this order
4
will result in dismissal of the petition pursuant to Local Rule
5
110.
6
7
IT IS SO ORDERED.
8
Dated:
ie14hj
June 29, 2011
/s/ Sheila K. Oberto
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
9
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?