Dews v. Kern Valley State Prison et al

Filing 8

ORDER to Petitioner to SHOW CAUSE in Thirty (30) Days why the 1 Petition should not be Dismissed for Petitioner's Failure to Exhaust State Remedies signed by Magistrate Judge Sheila K. Oberto on 4/3/2012. Show Cause Response due by 5/7/2012. (Sant Agata, S)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 CLARENCE LEON DEWS, ) ) Petitioner, ) ) ) v. ) ) KERN VALLEY STATE PRISON, et. ) al., ) Respondent. ) ) ) 1:12-cv—00450-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) 16 17 Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a 18 petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 19 The matter has been referred to the Magistrate Judge pursuant to 20 28 U.S.C.§ 636(b)(1) and Local Rules 302 and 303. 21 the Court is Petitioner’s petition, which was filed on March 12, 22 2012, and transferred to this Court on March 22, 2012. Pending before 23 I. 24 Rule 4 of the Rules Governing § 2254 Cases in the United Screening the Petition 25 States District Courts (Habeas Rules) requires the Court to make 26 a preliminary review of each petition for writ of habeas corpus. 27 The Court must summarily dismiss a petition "[i]f it plainly 28 appears from the petition and any attached exhibits that the 1 1 petitioner is not entitled to relief in the district court....” 2 Habeas Rule 4; O’Bremski v. Maass, 915 F.2d 418, 420 (9th Cir. 3 1990); see also Hendricks v. Vasquez, 908 F.2d 490 (9th Cir. 4 1990). 5 grounds of relief available to the Petitioner; 2) state the facts 6 supporting each ground; and 3) state the relief requested. 7 Notice pleading is not sufficient; rather, the petition must 8 state facts that point to a real possibility of constitutional 9 error. Habeas Rule 2(c) requires that a petition 1) specify all Rule 4, Advisory Committee Notes, 1976 Adoption; 10 O’Bremski v. Maass, 915 F.2d at 420 (quoting Blackledge v. 11 Allison, 431 U.S. 63, 75 n. 7 (1977)). 12 that are vague, conclusory, or palpably incredible are subject to 13 summary dismissal. 14 Cir. 1990). 15 Allegations in a petition Hendricks v. Vasquez, 908 F.2d 490, 491 (9th Further, the Court may dismiss a petition for writ of habeas 16 corpus either on its own motion under Habeas Rule 4, pursuant to 17 the respondent's motion to dismiss, or after an answer to the 18 petition has been filed. 19 8, 1976 Adoption; see, Herbst v. Cook, 260 F.3d 1039, 1042-43 20 (9th Cir. 2001). 21 Advisory Committee Notes to Habeas Rule Here, Petitioner alleges that he is an inmate of the Kern 22 Valley State Prison in Delano, California, which is located 23 within the territory of the Eastern District of California. 24 Petitioner names the warden of the prison as a Respondent. 25 Petitioner alleges that he was convicted and sentenced on October 26 12, 2011. 27 the petition: 1) this indigent criminal defender must receive 28 transcripts pursuant to Sixth and Fourteenth Amendment law that (Pet. 2.) Petitioner raises the following claims in 2 1 the accused shall be informed of the nature and cause of the 2 accusation, be confronted with the witnesses against him, and 3 have compulsory process; 2) an indigent defender must be allowed 4 a right to a transcript pursuant to the Fourth and Fifth 5 Amendments; 3) the order issued by the Eastern District Court on 6 February 9, 2012, directed the clerk to close the case, which 7 denied Petitioner the right to redress the court under the First 8 Amendment; 4) under the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments the 9 accused has an independent right to criminal trial reporter 10 transcripts, the right to be informed of the charges, confront 11 witnesses against him, have compulsory process for obtaining 12 witnesses in his favor, and the assistance of counsel in his 13 defense; and 5) a claim set forth verbatim as follows: 14 15 16 17 “There are ‘the right to study, to confront, to re-examine or to examine, to have the accusation of the cause of the nature of why there is witnesses against, this duty to and indigent defender is compelled by the 5th, 6th, 14th, to have theses (sic) rights by the Constitution of the people of the United Constitutional Amendment. Your honor, this is a constitutional right; it must be protected, it must not be denied a defendant....” 18 (Id. at 5-6.) 19 Although Petitioner sets forth numerous statements of 20 constitutional violations, he is actually asserting only two 21 claims: a claim that his rights were violated by his failure to 22 receive a copy of the trial transcript with respect to his appeal 23 from the pertinent judgment of conviction, and a claim that this 24 Court improperly and prematurely dismissed Petitioner’s petition 25 in a proceeding that is no longer pending, namely, Clarence Leon 26 Dews v. Superior Court, 1:11-cv-02050-BAM, which was dismissed on 27 February 10, 2012, because the amended petition concerned only 28 3 1 conditions of confinement. 2 II. Exhaustion of State Court Remedies 3 A petitioner who is in state custody and wishes to challenge 4 collaterally a conviction by a petition for writ of habeas corpus 5 must exhaust state judicial remedies. 6 The exhaustion doctrine is based on comity to the state court and 7 gives the state court the initial opportunity to correct the 8 state's alleged constitutional deprivations. 9 Thompson, 501 U.S. 722, 731 (1991); Rose v. Lundy, 455 U.S. 509, 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(1). Coleman v. 10 518 (1982); Buffalo v. Sunn, 854 F.2d 1158, 1162-63 (9th Cir. 11 1988). 12 A petitioner can satisfy the exhaustion requirement by 13 providing the highest state court with the necessary jurisdiction 14 a full and fair opportunity to consider each claim before 15 presenting it to the federal court, and demonstrating that no 16 state remedy remains available. 17 275-76 (1971); Johnson v. Zenon, 88 F.3d 828, 829 (9th Cir. 18 1996). 19 was given a full and fair opportunity to hear a claim if the 20 petitioner has presented the highest state court with the claim's 21 factual and legal basis. 22 (1995) (legal basis); Kenney v. Tamayo-Reyes, 504 U.S. 1, 9-10 23 (1992), superceded by statute as stated in Williams v. Taylor, 24 529 U.S. 362 (2000) (factual basis). 25 Picard v. Connor, 404 U.S. 270, 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 26 state court that he was raising a federal constitutional claim. 27 Duncan, 513 U.S. at 365-66; Lyons v. Crawford, 232 F.3d 666, 669 28 (9th Cir. 2000), amended, 247 F.3d 904 (9th Cir. 2001); Hiivala 4 1 v. Wood, 195 F.3d 1098, 1106 (9th Cir. 1999); Keating v. Hood, 2 133 F.3d 1240, 1241 (9th Cir. 1998). 3 States Supreme Court reiterated the rule as follows: 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 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 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. 12 Duncan, 513 U.S. at 365-366. The Ninth Circuit examined the rule 13 further in Lyons v. Crawford, 232 F.3d 666, 668-69 (9th Cir. 14 2000), as amended by Lyons v. Crawford, 247 F.3d 904, 904-05 (9th 15 Cir. 2001), stating: 16 17 18 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. ... 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. 5 1 Lyons v. Crawford, 232 F.3d 666, 668-69 (9th Cir. 2000), as 2 amended by Lyons v. Crawford, 247 F.3d 904, 904-05 (9th Cir. 3 2001). 4 Where none of a petitioner’s claims has been presented to 5 the highest state court as required by the exhaustion doctrine, 6 the Court must dismiss the petition. 7 F.3d 1150, 1154 (9th Cir. 2006); Jiminez v. Rice, 276 F.3d 478, 8 481 (9th Cir. 2001). 9 petition in abeyance pending exhaustion of the unexhausted claims Raspberry v. Garcia, 448 The authority of a court to hold a mixed 10 has not been extended to petitions that contain no exhausted 11 claims. 12 Raspberry, 448 F.3d at 1154. To the extent that Petitioner complains of the dismissal of 13 his previous habeas corpus petition, Petitioner has not stated 14 facts that warrant relief in a proceeding pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 15 § 2254. 16 meritorious, Petitioner has not alleged that he has exhausted his 17 state court remedies as to such a claim. 18 dismissal was recent, Petitioner has not exhausted his state 19 court remedies as to the claim. 20 remedy by way of post-judgment motion in the habeas proceeding 21 itself or by proceeding to appeal the dismissal of the 22 proceeding; however, absent exhaustion of state court remedies, 23 Petitioner’s claim must be dismissed. 24 However, even assuming Petitioner’s claim could be Further, because the Petitioner may have a potential With respect to Petitioner’s claim concerning a transcript, 25 in response to an inquiry regarding whether the grounds were 26 previously presented to the California Supreme Court, Petitioner 27 generally states that some of the statements and grounds 28 concerning grieving any government process were not in the 6 1 California Supreme Court because the case does not appear to have 2 been closed in that court, but rather in and by the “United 3 States District Eastern Court.” 4 (Pet. at 7.) The Court may take judicial notice of facts that are capable 5 of accurate and ready determination by resort to sources whose 6 accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned, including undisputed 7 information posted on official web sites. 8 United States v. Bernal-Obeso, 989 F.2d 331, 333 (9th Cir. 1993); 9 Daniels-Hall v. National Education Association, 629 F.3d 992, 999 Fed. R. Evid. 201(b); 10 (9th Cir. 2010). 11 the docket sheet of a California court. 12 882, 885 (9th Cir. 2010), cert. denied, 131 S.Ct. 332 (2010). 13 The address of the official website of the California state 14 courts is www.courts.ca.gov. 15 It is appropriate to take judicial notice of White v Martel, 601 F.3d This Court will take judicial notice of the proceedings in 16 People v. Clarence Leon Dews, case number F061339 pending in the 17 Court of Appeal of the State of California as a criminal appeal 18 from a judgment in trial court case number F09906781, which 19 appears to involve the judgment of which Petitioner complains in 20 the petition before this Court. 21 reflects that Petitioner has counsel, who has filed briefs. 22 However, it does not appear that argument has taken place or that 23 a decision has issued. 24 exhausted his state court remedies with respect to his appellate 25 proceedings. 26 has not concluded. 27 claims concerning that case to the California Supreme Court. 28 /// (Pet., doc. 1-1, 4.) The docket It thus appears that Petitioner has not Petitioner’s appeal in the state appellate court Accordingly, Petitioner has not presented the 7 1 Petitioner may claim that he has already presented this 2 issue to the California Supreme Court. 3 appeal has not proceeded to the point that he can present a 4 meritorious claim. 5 been denied his Constitutional right to a transcript, the 6 pertinent legal principles have been recently summarized as 7 follows: 8 However, Petitioner’s Insofar as Petitioner complains that he has 19 If state law provides a criminal defendant with a right to appeal, “the procedures used in deciding appeals must comport with the demands of the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Constitution.” Evitts v. Lucey, 469 U.S. 387, 393, 105 S.Ct. 830, 834, 83 L.Ed.2d 821 (1985); Griffin v. Illinois, 351 U.S. 12, 18, 76 S.Ct. 585, 590, 100 L.Ed. 891 (1956) (plurality). Thus, for instance, a criminal defendant has a due process right to a “record of sufficient completeness” to ensure meaningful appellate review. Draper v. Washington, 372 U.S. 487, 497, 83 S.Ct. 774, 780, 9 L.Ed.2d 899 (1963); Mayer v. City of Chicago, 404 U.S. 189, 194, 92 S.Ct. 410, 414, 30 L.Ed.2d 372 (1971); see also People of Territory of Guam v. Marquez, 963 F.2d 1311, 1315 (9th Cir.1992) (“As a matter of due process, an appellant is entitled to a ‘record of sufficient completeness' so that he or she can demonstrate that prejudicial error occurred during the trial.” (citations and some internal quotation marks omitted)); Fahy v. Horn, 516 F.3d 169, 190 (3d Cir.2008) (“It is indisputably true that a criminal defendant has the right to an adequate review of his conviction, i.e., a sufficiently complete record.”). 20 Quintero v. Tilton, 588 F.Supp.2d 1121, 1127-28 (C.D.Cal. 2008). 21 To be entitled to relief, a habeas petitioner must generally 22 allege facts that show that he was prejudiced by an alleged 23 constitutional violation. 24 637 (1993) (determining that habeas relief is warranted when an 25 error resulted in actual prejudice, or had a substantial and 26 injurious effect or influence in determining the jury’s verdict). 27 A claim concerning a transcript generally would not entitle a 28 petitioner to relief unless there is a showing of specific 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Brecht v. Abrahamson, 507 U.S. 619, 8 1 2 prejudice. Quintero v. Tilton, 588 F.Supp.2d 1121, 1128. Here, Petitioner’s appellate proceedings have not concluded. 3 Petitioner has counsel on appeal. 4 Petitioner’s counsel has made motions concerning augmenting the 5 transcripts in the appeal. 6 received some transcripts and is proceeding to perfect the 7 transcript on Petitioner’s behalf. 8 appellate court issues and becomes final, the existence and 9 extent of any prejudice to Petitioner with respect to transcripts 10 The docket reflects that It thus appears that counsel has Before the decision of the cannot yet be determined. 11 Upon review of the instant petition for writ of habeas 12 corpus, and considering the matters that are the subject of 13 judicial notice, it appears that Petitioner has not presented his 14 numerous claims to the California Supreme Court. If Petitioner 15 has not presented all of his claims to the California Supreme 16 Court, the Court cannot proceed to the merits of those claims. 28 17 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(1). 18 has presented his claims to the California Supreme Court and 19 simply neglected to inform this Court. 20 It is possible, however, that Petitioner Thus, Petitioner must inform the Court if his claims have 21 been presented to the California Supreme Court, and if possible, 22 provide the Court with a copy of the petition filed in the 23 California Supreme Court, along with a copy of any ruling made by 24 the California Supreme Court. 25 been presented to the California Supreme Court, the Court is 26 unable to proceed to the merits of the petition. Without knowing what claims have 27 III. Order to Show Cause 28 Accordingly, Petitioner is ORDERED to show cause why the 9 1 petition should not be dismissed for Petitioner’s failure to 2 exhaust state remedies. 3 Court what claims have been presented to the California Supreme 4 Court within thirty (30) days of the date of service of this 5 order. Petitioner is ORDERED to inform the 6 Petitioner is forewarned that failure to follow this order 7 will result in dismissal of the petition pursuant to Local Rule 8 110. 9 10 IT IS SO ORDERED. 11 Dated: ie14hj April 3, 2012 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 10

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?