Miale v. Superior Court of Tuolumne

Filing 7

ORDER DISMISSING the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus for Failure to Exhaust State Court Remedies; ORDER DECLINING TO ISSUE A CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY and Directing the Clerk to Close the Case signed by Magistrate Judge Sheila K. Oberto on 01/16/2013. CASE CLOSED. (Flores, E)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
12
13

MARTIN ROSS MIALE,

14

Petitioner,

15
v.
16
17
18
19

DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AT
D. V. I.,
Respondent.

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

1:13-cv—00005-SKO-HC
ORDER DISMISSING THE PETITION FOR
WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS FOR FAILURE
TO EXHAUST STATE COURT REMEDIES
(Doc. 1)
ORDER DECLINING TO ISSUE A
CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY AND
DIRECTING THE CLERK TO CLOSE THE
CASE

20
Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a
21
petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254.
22
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c)(1), Petitioner has consented to
23
the jurisdiction of the United States Magistrate Judge to conduct
24
all further proceedings in the case, including the entry of final
25
judgment, by manifesting consent in a signed writing filed by
26
Petitioner on January 11, 2013 (doc. 6).

Pending before the

27
Court is Petitioner’s petition, which was filed in this Court on
28
1

1

January 2, 2013.

2

of multiple theft offenses in the Tuolumne County Superior Court,

3

for which Petitioner was sentenced to an eight-year prison term

4

on October 2, 2012.

The petition challenges Petitioner’s conviction

(Pet., doc. 1, 1.)

5

I.

6

Rule 4 of the Rules Governing § 2254 Cases in the United

Screening the Petition

7

States District Courts (Habeas Rules) requires the Court to make

8

a preliminary review of each petition for writ of habeas corpus.

9

The Court must summarily dismiss a petition "[i]f it plainly

10

appears from the petition and any attached exhibits that the

11

petitioner is not entitled to relief in the district court....”

12

Habeas Rule 4; O’Bremski v. Maass, 915 F.2d 418, 420 (9th Cir.

13

1990); see also Hendricks v. Vasquez, 908 F.2d 490 (9th Cir.

14

1990).

15

grounds of relief available to the Petitioner; 2) state the facts

16

supporting each ground; and 3) state the relief requested.

17

Notice pleading is not sufficient; the petition must state facts

18

that point to a real possibility of constitutional error.

19

4, Advisory Committee Notes, 1976 Adoption; O’Bremski v. Maass,

20

915 F.2d at 420 (quoting Blackledge v. Allison, 431 U.S. 63, 75

21

n. 7 (1977)).

22

Habeas Rule 2(c) requires that a petition 1) specify all

Rule

Allegations in a petition that are vague, conclusory, or

23

palpably incredible are subject to summary dismissal.

24

v. Vasquez, 908 F.2d at 491.

25

for writ of habeas corpus either on its own motion under Habeas

26

Rule 4, pursuant to the respondent's motion to dismiss, or after

27

an answer to the petition has been filed.

28

Notes to Habeas Rule 8, 1976 Adoption; see, Herbst v. Cook, 260

Hendricks

The Court may dismiss a petition

2

Advisory Committee

1

F.3d 1039, 1042-43 (9th Cir. 2001).

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
3

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.
4

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.

Petitioner states that he has made motions to substitute his

13

counsel in the trial court, and he appears to allege that he has

14

been unsuccessful in filing an appeal in the Court of Appeal of

15

the State of California. (Pet. at 8-9, 11.)

16

that he did not appeal to the highest court.

17

Petitioner admits
(Id. at 9.)

The Court takes judicial notice of the docket in People v.

18

Miale, case number F065965 – a criminal appeal pending in the

19

Court of Appeal of the State of California, Fifth Appellate

20

District, filed on October 4, 2012, from the judgment dated

21

October 2, 2012, entered pursuant to Petitioner’s grand theft

22

convictions suffered in the Tuolumne County Superior Court.1

23

appears that Petitioner has not completed the process of direct

It

24
1

25
26
27
28

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). It is appropriate to take judicial notice of the
docket sheet of a California court. White v Martel, 601 F.3d 882, 885 (9th
Cir. 2010), cert. denied, 131 S.Ct. 332 (2010). The address of the official
website of the California state courts is www.courts.ca.gov.

5

1

appeal in the state courts at the level of the state intermediate

2

appellate court.

3

Court would be premature.

4

Thus, any application to the California Supreme

Finally, the Court takes judicial notice of the absence of

5

any record of Petitioner’s having filed any application for

6

relief in the California Supreme Court with respect to the

7

judgment of October 2, 2012.

8
9

It appears that Petitioner has not exhausted his state court
remedies by seeking review from the California Supreme Court.

10

Although non-exhaustion of remedies has been viewed as an

11

affirmative defense, it is the petitioner’s burden to prove that

12

state judicial remedies were properly exhausted.

13

2254(b)(1)(A); Darr v. Burford, 339 U.S. 200, 218-19 (1950),

14

overruled in part on other grounds in Fay v. Noia, 372 U.S. 391

15

(1963); Cartwright v. Cupp, 650 F.2d 1103, 1104 (9th Cir. 1981).

16

If available state court remedies have not been exhausted as to

17

all claims, a district court must dismiss a petition.

18

Lundy, 455 U.S. 509, 515-16 (1982).

28 U.S.C. §

Rose v.

19

Here, Petitioner’s petition is premature because he has not

20

obtained a decision on direct appeal from the state intermediate

21

appellate court, and he admits that he has not submitted his

22

claim or claims to the California Supreme Court for a ruling.

23

search of the official website of the California Supreme Court

24

reflects no information to show that Petitioner has presented his

25

claims to the California Supreme Court.

26
27

A

The court, therefore, concludes that Petitioner failed to
meet his burden to establish exhaustion of state court remedies.

28
6

1

Accordingly, the petition will be dismissed without prejudice2

2

for failure to exhaust state court remedies.

3

III.

4

Unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of

Certificate of Appealability

5

appealability, an appeal may not be taken to the Court of Appeals

6

from the final order in a habeas proceeding in which the

7

detention complained of arises out of process issued by a state

8

court.

9

U.S. 322, 336 (2003).

28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A); Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537
A certificate of appealability may issue

10

only if the applicant makes a substantial showing of the denial

11

of a constitutional right.

12

petitioner must show that reasonable jurists could debate whether

13

the petition should have been resolved in a different manner or

14

that the issues presented were adequate to deserve encouragement

15

to proceed further.

16

(quoting Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000)).

17

certificate should issue if the Petitioner shows that jurists of

§ 2253(c)(2).

Under this standard, a

Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. at 336
A

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

2
A dismissal for failure to exhaust is not a dismissal on the merits,
and Petitioner will not be barred from returning to federal court after
Petitioner exhausts available state remedies by the prohibition on filing
second habeas petitions set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b). See, In re Turner,
101 F.3d 1323 (9th Cir. 1996). However, the Supreme Court has held as
follows:

[I]n the habeas corpus context it would be appropriate for an
order dismissing a mixed petition to instruct an applicant that
upon his return to federal court he is to bring only exhausted
claims. See Fed. Rules Civ. Proc. 41(a) and (b). Once the
petitioner is made aware of the exhaustion requirement, no reason
exists for him not to exhaust all potential claims before
returning to federal court. The failure to comply with an order of
the court is grounds for dismissal with prejudice. Fed. Rules Civ.
Proc. 41(b).

26
Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 489 (2000).

27
28

Therefore, Petitioner is forewarned that in the event he returns to
federal court and files a mixed petition of exhausted and unexhausted claims,
the petition may be dismissed with prejudice.

7

1

reason would find it debatable whether the petition states a

2

valid claim of the denial of a constitutional right or that

3

jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the district

4

court was correct in any procedural ruling.

5

529 U.S. 473, 483-84 (2000).

6

Slack v. McDaniel,

In determining this issue, a court conducts an overview of

7

the claims in the habeas petition, generally assesses their

8

merits, and determines whether the resolution was debatable among

9

jurists of reason or wrong.

Id.

An applicant must show more

10

than an absence of frivolity or the existence of mere good faith;

11

however, the applicant need not show that the appeal will

12

succeed.

Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. at 338.

13

A district court must issue or deny a certificate of

14

appealability when it enters a final order adverse to the

15

applicant.

16

Rule 11(a) of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases.

Here, it does not appear that reasonable jurists could

17

debate whether the petition should have been resolved in a

18

different manner.

19

of the denial of a constitutional right.

20

will decline to issue a certificate of appealability.

Petitioner has not made a substantial showing

21

IV.

22

Accordingly, it is ORDERED that:

23

1)

Accordingly, the Court

Disposition

The petition for writ of habeas corpus is DISMISSED

24

without prejudice for Petitioner’s failure to exhaust state court

25

remedies; and

26

2)

The Court DECLINES to issue a certificate of

27

appealability; and

28

///
8

1

3)

The Clerk is DIRECTED to close the case.

2
3
4
5

IT IS SO ORDERED.

6

Dated:
ie14hj

January 16, 2013

/s/ Sheila K. Oberto
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
9