Profit v. Holland

Filing 5

ORDER DISMISSING Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus; ORDER Directing Clerk of Court to Enter Judgment and Terminate Case; ORDER DECLINING ISSUANCE OF CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY signed by Magistrate Judge Stanley A. Boone on 10/16/2013. CASE CLOSED. (Flores, E)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JOSHUA PROFIT, 12 13 14 15 Case No. 1:13-cv-01387-SAB-HC Petitioner, ORDER DISMISSING PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS v. ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT TO ENTER JUDGMENT AND TERMINATE CASE KIM HOLLAND, Respondent. ORDER DECLINING ISSUANCE OF CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY 16 17 18 Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas corpus 19 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. He has consented to the jurisdiction of the Magistrate Judge 20 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). 21 The instant petition challenges a 2010 conviction sustained in Kern County Superior 22 Court for second degree murder and possession of a firearm by a felon. Petitioner was sentenced 23 on January 27, 2013, to serve a term of 68 years in state prison. 24 I. 25 DISCUSSION 26 Rule 4 of the Rules Governing § 2254 Cases requires the Court to make a preliminary 27 review of each petition for writ of habeas corpus. The Court must dismiss a petition "[i]f it 28 plainly appears from the petition . . . that the petitioner is not entitled to relief." See Rule 4 of the 1 1 Rules Governing § 2254 Cases; Hendricks v. Vasquez, 908 F.2d 490 (9th Cir.1990). Otherwise, 2 the Court will order Respondent to respond to the petition. See Rule 5 of the Rules Governing § 3 2254 Cases. 4 A petitioner who is in state custody and wishes to collaterally challenge his conviction by 5 a petition for writ of habeas corpus must exhaust state judicial remedies. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(1). 6 The exhaustion doctrine is based on comity to the state court and gives the state court the initial 7 opportunity to correct the state's alleged constitutional deprivations. Coleman v. Thompson, 501 8 U.S. 722, 731 (1991); Rose v. Lundy, 455 U.S. 509, 518 (1982); Buffalo v. Sunn, 854 F.2d 1158, 9 1163 (9th Cir. 1988). 10 A petitioner can satisfy the exhaustion requirement by providing the highest state court 11 with a full and fair opportunity to consider each claim before presenting it to the federal court. 12 Duncan v. Henry, 513 U.S. 364, 365 (1995); Picard v. Connor, 404 U.S. 270, 276 (1971); 13 Johnson v. Zenon, 88 F.3d 828, 829 (9th Cir. 1996). A federal court will find that the highest 14 state court was given a full and fair opportunity to hear a claim if the petitioner has presented the 15 highest state court with the claim's factual and legal basis. Duncan, 513 U.S. at 365 (legal basis); 16 Kenney v. Tamayo-Reyes, 504 U.S. 1, 8-10 (1992) (factual basis). 17 Additionally, the petitioner must have specifically told the state court that he was raising 18 a federal constitutional claim. Duncan, 513 U.S. at 365-66; Lyons v. Crawford, 232 F.3d 666, 19 669 (9th Cir.2000), amended, 247 F.3d 904 (2001); Hiivala v. Wood, 195 F.3d 1098, 1106 (9th 20 Cir.1999); Keating v. Hood, 133 F.3d 1240, 1241 (9th Cir.1998). In Duncan, the United States 21 Supreme Court reiterated the rule as follows: 22 23 24 25 26 27 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. 28 2 1 Duncan, 513 U.S. at 365-366. The Ninth Circuit examined the rule further, stating: 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 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 “selfevident," 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. Hiivala v. Wood, 195 F3d 1098, 1106-07 (9th Cir. 1999); Johnson v. Zenon, 88 F.3d 828, 830-31 (9th Cir. 1996); . . . . 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. 11 Lyons v. Crawford, 232 F.3d 666, 668-669 (9th Cir. 2000). 12 In the instant petition, Petitioner states he has not sought review of his claims in the 13 California Supreme Court. Therefore, the petition is unexhausted and must be dismissed. 28 14 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(1); Rose, 455 U.S. 509. 15 II. 16 CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY 17 A state prisoner seeking a writ of habeas corpus has no absolute entitlement to appeal a 18 district court’s denial of his petition, and an appeal is only allowed in certain circumstances. 19 Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 335-36 (2003). The controlling statute in determining 20 whether to issue a certificate of appealability is 28 U.S.C. § 2253, which provides as follows: 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 (a) In a habeas corpus proceeding or a proceeding under section 2255 before a district judge, the final order shall be subject to review, on appeal, by the court of appeals for the circuit in which the proceeding is held. (b) There shall be no right of appeal from a final order in a proceeding to test the validity of a warrant to remove to another district or place for commitment or trial a person charged with a criminal offense against the United States, or to test the validity of such person’s detention pending removal proceedings. (c) (1) Unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability, an appeal may not be taken to the court of appeals from– (A) the final order in a habeas corpus proceeding in which the detention complained of arises out of process issued by a State court; or 3 (B) the final order in a proceeding under section 2255. 1 2 (2) A certificate of appealability may issue under paragraph (1) only if the applicant has made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. 3 4 (3) The certificate of appealability under paragraph (1) shall indicate which specific issue or issues satisfy the showing required by paragraph (2). 5 If a court denies a petitioner’s petition, the court may only issue a certificate of 6 7 appealability “if jurists of reason could disagree with the district court’s resolution of his 8 constitutional claims or that jurists could conclude the issues presented are adequate to deserve 9 encouragement to proceed further.” Miller-El, 537 U.S. at 327; Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 10 484 (2000). While the petitioner is not required to prove the merits of his case, he must 11 demonstrate “something more than the absence of frivolity or the existence of mere good faith on 12 his . . . part.” Miller-El, 537 U.S. at 338. In the present case, the Court finds that reasonable jurists would not find the Court’s 13 14 determination that Petitioner is not entitled to federal habeas corpus relief debatable, wrong, or 15 deserving of encouragement to proceed further. Petitioner has not made the required substantial 16 showing of the denial of a constitutional right. Accordingly, the Court hereby DECLINES to 17 issue a certificate of appealability. 18 III. 19 ORDER 20 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 21 1) The petition for writ of habeas corpus is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE 1; 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 1 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 28 U.S.C. § 2244 (b)’s prohibition on filing second petitions. See In re Turner, 101 F.3d 1323 (9th Cir. 1996). However, the Supreme Court has held that: [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). 4 1 2) The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to enter judgment and terminate the case; and 2 3) The Court DECLINES to issue a certificate of appealability. 3 4 IT IS SO ORDERED. 5 Dated: October 16, 2013 _ 6 _ 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 Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 489 (2000). 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 28 prejudice. 5

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?