Tamplin v. Muniz
Filing
7
ORDER Requiring Petitioner To Submit Within Thirty (30) Days A Signed And Dated Declaration Concerning The Petition (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, ORDER To Petitioner To Show Cause In Thirty (30) Days Why The Petition Should Not Be Dismissed For Petitioner's Failure To Exhaust State Court Remedies, signed by Magistrate Judge Sheila K. Oberto on 10/21/2012. (Petitioner's Declaration Deadline: 11/26/2012, Motion to Amend Deadline: 11/26/2012, Show Cause Response due by 11/26/2012)(Fahrney, E)
1
2
3
4
5
6
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
7
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
9
10
DWIGHT TAMPLIN, JR.,
11
Petitioner,
12
v.
13
K. BROWN,
14
Respondent.
15
16
17
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
1:12-cv—01633-SKO-HC
ORDER REQUIRING PETITIONER TO
SUBMIT WITHIN THIRTY (30) DAYS A
SIGNED AND DATED DECLARATION
CONCERNING THE PETITION (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
ORDER TO PETITIONER TO SHOW CAUSE
IN THIRTY (30) DAYS WHY THE
PETITION SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED
FOR PETITIONER’S FAILURE TO
EXHAUST STATE COURT REMEDIES
18
19
20
Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in
21
forma pauperis with a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant
22
to 28 U.S.C. § 2254.
The matter has been referred to the
23
Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C.§ 636(b)(1) and Local Rules
24
302 and 303.
Pending before the Court is Petitioner’s petition,
25
which was filed in this Court on October 4, 2012.
26
I.
Background
27
Petitioner is an inmate of the Salinas Valley State Prison
28
1
1
(SVSP) serving a sentence of forty-five years to life imposed in
2
the Fresno County Superior Court pursuant to a conviction
3
sustained on or about January 23, 2006, of being an ex-felon in
4
possession of a firearm with a gang enhancement.
5
Petitioner challenges his conviction.
In his 189-page
6
petition, Petitioner raises the following claims: 1) trial
7
counsel’s failure to make motions constituted the ineffective
8
assistance of counsel in violation of Petitioner’s rights under
9
the Sixth Amendment (pet., doc. 1, 5-10); 2) trial counsel’s
10
failure to investigate and call defense witnesses constituted
11
ineffective assistance of counsel in violation of Petitioner’s
12
rights under the Sixth Amendment (id. at 11-89); 3) appellate
13
counsel’s failure to raise the denial of Petitioner’s Faretta
14
motion constituted ineffective assistance of counsel (id. at 39-
15
130); 4) allowing a statement allegedly made by Petitioner into
16
evidence as an element of a gang enhancement constituted a
17
violation of Petitioner’s protection against self-incrimination
18
under the Fifth Amendment and a Miranda violation because
19
Petitioner had not waived his rights (id. at 131-47); 5) trial
20
counsel’s failure to prepare for evidentiary issues concerning
21
gang affiliation and to consult Petitioner concerning his defense
22
violated Petitioner’s right under the Sixth Amendment to the
23
effective assistance of counsel (id. at 148-51); and 6) the trial
24
court’s failure to bifurcate gang enhancement allegations and the
25
remainder of the trial constituted an abuse of discretion and a
26
violation of Petitioner’s right to due process under the Fifth
27
Amendment (id. at 152-86).
28
///
2
1
II.
2
Rule 4 of the Rules Governing § 2254 Cases in the United
Screening the Petition
3
States District Courts (Habeas Rules) requires the Court to make
4
a preliminary review of each petition for writ of habeas corpus.
5
The Court must summarily dismiss a petition "[i]f it plainly
6
appears from the petition and any attached exhibits that the
7
petitioner is not entitled to relief in the district court....”
8
Habeas Rule 4; O’Bremski v. Maass, 915 F.2d 418, 420 (9th Cir.
9
1990); see also Hendricks v. Vasquez, 908 F.2d 490 (9th Cir.
10
1990).
11
grounds of relief available to the Petitioner; 2) state the facts
12
supporting each ground; and 3) state the relief requested.
13
Notice pleading is not sufficient; rather, the petition must
14
state facts that point to a real possibility of constitutional
15
error.
16
O’Bremski v. Maass, 915 F.2d at 420 (quoting Blackledge v.
17
Allison, 431 U.S. 63, 75 n. 7 (1977)).
18
that are vague, conclusory, or palpably incredible are subject to
19
summary dismissal.
20
Habeas Rule 2(c) requires that a petition 1) specify all
Rule 4, Advisory Committee Notes, 1976 Adoption;
Allegations in a petition
Hendricks v. Vasquez, 908 F.2d at 491.
The Court may dismiss a petition for writ of habeas corpus
21
either on its own motion under Habeas Rule 4, pursuant to the
22
respondent's motion to dismiss, or after an answer to the
23
petition has been filed.
24
8, 1976 Adoption; see, Herbst v. Cook, 260 F.3d 1039, 1042-43
25
(9th Cir. 2001).
26
not be dismissed without leave to amend unless it appears that no
27
tenable claim for relief can be pleaded were such leave granted.
28
Jarvis v. Nelson, 440 F.2d 13, 14 (9th Cir. 1971).
Advisory Committee Notes to Habeas Rule
However, a petition for habeas corpus should
3
1
III.
2
Failure to Sign and Date the Petition and to Verify
the Contents of the Petition to Be True under Penalty
of Perjury
3
A review of the petition shows that Petitioner did not sign
4
or date the petition.
5
under penalty of perjury.
6
Further, the petition is not verified
Local Rule 131 requires a document submitted to the Court
7
for filing to include an original signature.
8
Rule 2 requires a petition for writ of habeas corpus to “be
9
signed under penalty of perjury by the petitioner.”
10
In addition, Habeas
In light of the difficulty in having Petitioner submit a new
11
habeas corpus petition, Petitioner will be ordered to submit a
12
separate document stating that he submitted the previously filed
13
petition to the Court and verifying its contents to be true under
14
penalty of perjury of the laws of the United States.
15
must sign the document under penalty of perjury; the document
16
should contain an original signature.
Petitioner must state the
17
date on which he signed the document.
Petitioner will be granted
18
thirty (30) days from the date of service of this order to comply
19
with the Court’s directive.
20
Petitioner
Petitioner is forewarned that failure to comply with a Court
21
order will result in dismissal of the petition pursuant to Local
22
Rule 110.
23
IV.
24
Petitioner named as Respondent “K. Brown.”
Failure to Name a Proper Respondent
(Pet. 1.)
The
25
official website of the California Department of Corrections and
26
Rehabilitation (CDCR) reflects that the warden at SVSP, where
27
28
4
1
2
Petitioner is incarcerated, is Randy Grounds.1
A petitioner seeking habeas corpus relief under 28 U.S.C.
3
§ 2254 must name the state officer having custody of him as the
4
respondent to the petition.
5
Gomez, 81 F.3d 891, 894 (9th Cir. 1996); Stanley v. California
6
Supreme Court, 21 F.3d 359, 360 (9th Cir. 1994).
7
person having custody of an incarcerated petitioner is the warden
8
of the prison in which the petitioner is incarcerated because the
9
warden has "day-to-day control over" the petitioner and thus can
Habeas Rule 2(a); Ortiz-Sandoval v.
Generally, the
10
produce the petitioner.
11
378, 379 (9th Cir. 1992); see also, Stanley v. California Supreme
12
Court, 21 F.3d 359, 360 (9th Cir. 1994).
13
officer in charge of state penal institutions, such as the
14
Secretary of the CDCR, is also appropriate.
15
F.3d at 894; Stanley, 21 F.3d at 360.
16
Brittingham v. United States, 982 F.2d
However, the chief
Ortiz-Sandoval, 81
Petitioner’s failure to name a proper respondent may require
17
dismissal of his habeas petition for a failure to name a person
18
who can produce the petitioner in response to an order of the
19
Court and thereby to secure personal jurisdiction.
20
Idaho, 392 F.3d 350, 355 n.3 (9th Cir. 2004).
21
ask sua sponte whether the respondent who is named has the power
22
to order petitioner’s release.
23
effective relief, and thus it should not hear the case unless the
See, Smith v.
This Court must
If not, the Court may not grant
24
25
26
27
28
1
The Court may take judicial notice of facts that are capable of
accurate and ready determination by resort to sources whose accuracy cannot
reasonably be questioned, including undisputed information posted on official
websites. Fed. R. Evid. 201(b); United States v. Bernal-Obeso, 989 F.2d 331,
333 (9th Cir. 1993); Daniels-Hall v. National Education Association, 629 F.3d
992, 999 (9th Cir. 2010). The address of the official website for the CDCR is
http://www.cdcr.ca.gov.
5
1
petition is amended to name a respondent who can grant the
2
desired relief.
3
Id.
The Court will give Petitioner the opportunity to cure this
4
defect by amending the petition to name a proper respondent, such
5
as the warden of his facility.
6
893-94 (9th Cir. 2004).
7
Petitioner need not file an amended petition.
8
Petitioner may file a motion entitled "Motion to Amend the
9
Petition to Name a Proper Respondent" in which Petitioner may
10
11
See, In re Morris, 363 F.3d 891,
In the interest of judicial economy,
Instead,
name the proper respondent in this action.
Petitioner is forewarned that failure to amend the petition
12
and state a proper respondent will result in dismissal of the
13
petition for failure to follow an order of the Court pursuant to
14
Local Rule 110, and for failure to name as respondent a person
15
with the power to produce the petitioner.
16
V.
17
A petitioner who is in state custody and wishes to challenge
18
collaterally a conviction by a petition for writ of habeas corpus
19
must exhaust state judicial remedies.
20
The exhaustion doctrine is based on comity to the state court and
21
gives the state court the initial opportunity to correct the
22
state's alleged constitutional deprivations.
23
Thompson, 501 U.S. 722, 731 (1991); Rose v. Lundy, 455 U.S. 509,
24
518 (1982); Buffalo v. Sunn, 854 F.2d 1158, 1162-63 (9th Cir.
25
1988).
Exhaustion of State Court Remedies
28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(1).
Coleman v.
26
A petitioner can satisfy the exhaustion requirement by
27
providing the highest state court with the necessary jurisdiction
28
a full and fair opportunity to consider each claim before
6
1
presenting it to the federal court, and demonstrating that no
2
state remedy remains available.
3
275-76 (1971); Johnson v. Zenon, 88 F.3d 828, 829 (9th Cir.
4
1996).
5
was given a full and fair opportunity to hear a claim if the
6
petitioner has presented the highest state court with the claim's
7
factual and legal basis.
8
(1995) (legal basis); Kenney v. Tamayo-Reyes, 504 U.S. 1, 9-10
9
(1992), superceded by statute as stated in Williams v. Taylor,
10
11
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
529 U.S. 362 (2000) (factual basis).
Additionally, the petitioner must have specifically told the
12
state court that he was raising a federal constitutional claim.
13
Duncan, 513 U.S. at 365-66; Lyons v. Crawford, 232 F.3d 666, 669
14
(9th Cir. 2000), amended, 247 F.3d 904 (9th Cir. 2001); Hiivala
15
v. Wood, 195 F.3d 1098, 1106 (9th Cir. 1999); Keating v. Hood,
16
133 F.3d 1240, 1241 (9th Cir. 1998).
17
States Supreme Court reiterated the rule as follows:
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
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.
26
Duncan, 513 U.S. at 365-366.
The Ninth Circuit examined the rule
27
further in Lyons v. Crawford, 232 F.3d 666, 668-69 (9th Cir.
28
7
1
2000), as amended by Lyons v. Crawford, 247 F.3d 904, 904-05 (9th
2
Cir. 2001), stating:
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
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.
15
Lyons v. Crawford, 232 F.3d 666, 668-69 (9th Cir. 2000), as
16
amended by Lyons v. Crawford, 247 F.3d 904, 904-05 (9th Cir.
17
2001).
18
Where none of a petitioner’s claims has been presented to
19
the highest state court as required by the exhaustion doctrine,
20
the Court must dismiss the petition.
Raspberry v. Garcia, 448
21
F.3d 1150, 1154 (9th Cir. 2006); Jiminez v. Rice, 276 F.3d 478,
22
481 (9th Cir. 2001).
The authority of a court to hold a mixed
23
petition in abeyance pending exhaustion of the unexhausted claims
24
has not been extended to petitions that contain no exhausted
25
claims.
Raspberry, 448 F.3d at 1154.
26
Petitioner states that he appealed the judgment and filed a
27
petition for review in the California Supreme Court.
28
8
(Pet. 2.)
1
Petitioner also states that he filed a petition for writ of
2
habeas corpus in the Fresno County Superior Court, in which he
3
raised ineffective assistance of counsel, a Miranda violation,
4
abuse of discretion, and sufficiency of the evidence.
5
3.)
6
proceedings all the issues that he seeks to raise in his petition
7
here.
8
issues before the California Supreme Court.
9
specifically describe the proceedings in the state courts in
(Id. at 2-
However, Petitioner has not alleged that he raised in those
Further, he does not allege that he has raised all his
Petitioner does not
10
which he exhausted his claims.
11
instant petition for writ of habeas corpus, it appears that
12
Petitioner has not presented all his claims to the California
13
Supreme Court.
14
to the California Supreme Court, the Court cannot proceed to the
15
merits of those claims. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(1).
16
however, that Petitioner has presented his claims to the
17
California Supreme Court and simply neglected to inform this
18
Court.
19
Therefore, upon review of the
If Petitioner has not presented all of his claims
It is possible,
Thus, Petitioner must inform the Court if his claims have
20
been presented to the California Supreme Court, and if possible,
21
provide the Court with a copy of the petition filed in the
22
California Supreme Court, along with a copy of any ruling made by
23
the California Supreme Court.
24
been presented to the California Supreme Court, the Court is
25
unable to proceed to the merits of the petition.
26
Without knowing what claims have
Accordingly, Petitioner will be ordered to show cause why
27
the petition should not be dismissed for Petitioner’s failure to
28
exhaust state remedies.
Petitioner will be ordered to inform the
9
1
Court what claims have been presented to the California Supreme
2
Court within thirty (30) days.
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
VI.
7
Accordingly, it is ORDERED that:
8
1) Petitioner shall SUBMIT no later than thirty (30) days
9
Disposition
after the date of service of this order a signed and dated,
10
separate document stating that he submitted the habeas corpus
11
petition to the Court and verifying its contents to be true under
12
penalty of perjury of the laws of the United States; and
13
2) Petitioner is GRANTED thirty (30) days from the date of
14
service of this order in which to file a motion to amend the
15
instant petition and name a proper respondent; and
16
3) Petitioner is ORDERED to show cause why the petition
17
should not be dismissed for Petitioner’s failure to exhaust state
18
remedies.
19
have been presented to the California Supreme Court within thirty
20
(30) days of the date of service of this order.
Petitioner is ORDERED to inform the Court what claims
21
22
23
IT IS SO ORDERED.
24
Dated:
ie14hj
October 21, 2012
/s/ Sheila K. Oberto
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
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?