Woodis v. Morales et al

Filing 5

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO DISMISS 1 PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS FOR FAILURE TO EXHAUST STATE REMEDIES. ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT TO ASSIGN DISTRICT COURT JUDGE TO THE PRESENT MATTER signed by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Seng on 3/3/2015. Case assigned to District Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill; New Case Number 1:15-cv-00071-LJO-MJS-(HC). Referred to Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill; Objections to F&R due by 4/6/2015. (Lundstrom, T)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
10
11

Case No. 1:15-cv-00071 MJS (HC)
DENO E. WOODIS,

12
v.

13

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION TO
Petitioner, DISMISS PETITION FOR WRIT OF
HABEAS CORPUS FOR FAILURE TO
EXHAUST STATE REMEDIES
ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT TO
ASSIGN DISTRICT COURT JUDGE TO THE
PRESENT MATTER

14
15

D. MORALES, et al.,
Respondents.

16
17
18

Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas

19

corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Petitioner challenges a December, 2014

20

conviction for assault and battery.1 (Pet., ECF No. 1.) Petitioner states in the petition that

21

he has not sought review from any state court, including the California Supreme Court.

22

I.

23

BACKGROUND
Petitioner is currently in the custody of the California Department of Corrections.

24
25
26
27
28

1

The Court notes that it is unclear if Petitioner is attempting to challenge his conviction, or if he
asserting that his civil rights were violated due to the conditions of his confinement at the time of the
criminal incident. If Petitioner is not challenging his conviction, Petitioner should proceed by way of a civil
rights complaint. To promote judicial economy, the Court shall assume that Petitioner is attempting to
challenge the fact or duration of his confinement, and proceed to determine whether he exhausted his
claims in state court. Regardless whether his claims are not cognizable in habeas or if he has not
exhausted his claims in state court, the result is the same – dismissal without prejudice.

1

1

On January 15, 2015, Petitioner filed the instant petition for writ of habeas corpus in this

2

Court challenging a December, 2014 conviction for assault and battery. (Pet., ECF No.

3

1.)

4

Petitioner stated that he had not presented the claims in the instant petition to the

5

California Supreme Court. On January 22, 2015, this Court ordered Petitioner to show

6

cause why the petition should not be dismissed for failure to exhaust state remedies.

7

Petitioner was forewarned that the failure to comply with the order would result in

8

dismissal of the petition. (Order, ECF No. 4.) The Petitioner was ordered to file the

9

response within thirty days of service of the order to show cause. However over thirty

10

days have passed and Petitioner has not filed a response.

11

II.

DISCUSSION

12

A.

Procedural Grounds to Dismiss Petition

13

Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases allows a district court to

14

dismiss a petition if it “plainly appears from the petition and any attached exhibits that the

15

petitioner is not entitled to relief in the district court . . . .” The Advisory Committee Notes

16

to Rule 5 of the Rules Governing § 2254 Cases state that “an alleged failure to exhaust

17

state remedies may be raised by the attorney general, thus avoiding the necessity of a

18

formal answer as to that ground.” Based on the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases,

19

the Court will determine whether Petitioner is entitled to relief pursuant to its authority

20

under Rule 4.

21

B.

22

A petitioner who is in state custody and wishes to collaterally challenge his

23

conviction by a petition for writ of habeas corpus must exhaust state judicial remedies.

24

28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(1). The exhaustion doctrine is based on comity to the state court

25

and gives the state court the initial opportunity to correct the state's alleged constitutional

26

deprivations. Coleman v. Thompson, 501 U.S. 722, 731 (1991); Rose v. Lundy, 455 U.S.

27

509, 518 (1982).

28

Exhaustion of State Remedies

A petitioner can satisfy the exhaustion requirement by providing the highest state
2

1

court with a full and fair opportunity to consider each claim before presenting it to the

2

federal court. Duncan v. Henry, 513 U.S. 364, 365 (1995); Picard v. Connor, 404 U.S.

3

270, 276 (1971); Johnson v. Zenon, 88 F.3d 828, 829 (9th Cir. 1996). Additionally, the

4

petitioner must have specifically told the state court that he was raising a federal

5

constitutional claim. Duncan, 513 U.S. at 365-66; Lyons v. Crawford, 232 F.3d 666, 669

6

(9th Cir. 2000), amended, 247 F.3d 904 (2001). In Duncan, the United States Supreme

7

Court reiterated the rule as follows:

8

13

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.

14

Duncan, 513 U.S. at 365-366. The Ninth Circuit examined the rule further, stating:

15

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. Hiivala v. Wood, 195 F3d 1098,
1106-07 (9th Cir. 1999); Johnson v. Zenon, 88 F.3d 828, 830-31 (9th Cir.
1996); . . . .

9
10
11
12

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24

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.
Lyons, 232 F.3d at 668-669 (italics added).

25
As stated above, Petitioner was informed by the Court that the claims of his
26
federal petition were unexhausted and was ordered to show cause why the petition
27
should not be dismissed. Petitioner did not respond. As Petitioner has not presented
28
3

1

evidence that he has exhausted the claims in the instant petition with the California

2

Supreme Court, the petition must be dismissed.

3

III.

RECOMMENDATION

4

Accordingly, it is RECOMMENDED that the petition be DISMISSED without

5

prejudice. Further, the Court ORDERS the Clerk of Court to assign a District Court

6

Judge to the present matter.

7

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District

8

Court Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636

9

(b)(1)(B) and Rule 304 of the Local Rules of Practice for the United States District Court,

10

Eastern District of California. Within thirty (30) days after being served with a copy, any

11

party may file written objections with the Court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a

12

document should be captioned "Objections to Magistrate Judge's Findings and

13

Recommendations." Replies to the objections shall be served and filed within fourteen

14

(14) days (plus three (3) days if served by mail) after service of the objections. The Court

15

will then review the Magistrate Judge's ruling pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(C). The

16

parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the

17

right to appeal the District Court's order. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 839 (9th

18

Cir. 2014).

19
20
21
22

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

March 3, 2015

/s/

Michael J. Seng

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

23
24
25
26
27
28
4