Frias v. Fresno County
Filing
9
FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS recommending that the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus be DISMISSED for Lack of Exhaustion re 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus ;referred to Judge O'Neill,signed by Magistrate Judge Jennifer L. Thurston on 11/12/2015. (21-Day Deadline) (Martin-Gill, S)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
GILBERTO ENRIQUE FRIAS,
12
13
14
15
Petitioner,
v.
FRESNO COUNTY,
Respondent.
16
17
18
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No.: 1:15-cv-01620-JLT
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO
DISMISS THE PETITION FOR LACK OF
EXHAUSTION (Doc. 1)
ORDER DIRECTING THAT OBJECTIONS BE
FILED WITHIN TWENTY-ONE DAYS
ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT TO
ASSIGN DISTRICT JUDGE TO CASE
This action was filed on October 26, 2015. (Doc. 1). After a preliminary review of the petition
19
it appeared to the Court that none of the claims have been exhausted in state court. Thus, the Court
20
ordered Petitioner to show cause why it should not be dismissed as completely unexhausted. (Doc. 5).
21
In his response, Petitioner argues that the Superior Court of California has denied his habeas petition
22
which, contends, is sufficient efforts toward exhaustion. (Doc. 7). The Court disagrees and
23
recommends the petition be DISMISSED.
24
DISCUSSION
25
A. Preliminary Review of Petition.
26
Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases allows a district court to dismiss a petition
27
if it “plainly appears from the face of the petition and any exhibits annexed to it that the petitioner is
28
not entitled to relief in the district court . . . .” Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. The
1
1
Advisory Committee Notes to Rule 8 indicate that the court may dismiss a petition for writ of habeas
2
corpus, either on its own motion under Rule 4, pursuant to the respondent’s motion to dismiss, or after
3
an answer to the petition has been filed. Herbst v. Cook, 260 F.3d 1039 (9th Cir.2001).
4
B. Exhaustion.
5
A state prisoner who wishes to collaterally attack his criminal conviction in federal court by a
6
petition for writ of habeas corpus must exhaust state judicial remedies. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(1). The
7
exhaustion doctrine is based on comity to the state court and gives the state court the initial
8
opportunity to correct the state's alleged constitutional deprivations. Coleman v. Thompson, 501 U.S.
9
722, 731 (1991); Rose v. Lundy, 455 U.S. 509, 518 (1982); Buffalo v. Sunn, 854 F.2d 1158, 1163 (9th
10
11
Cir. 1988).
A petitioner can satisfy the exhaustion requirement by providing the highest state court with a
12
full and fair opportunity to consider each claim before presenting it to the federal court. Duncan v.
13
Henry, 513 U.S. 364, 365 (1995); Picard v. Connor, 404 U.S. 270, 276 (1971); Johnson v. Zenon, 88
14
F.3d 828, 829 (9th Cir. 1996). A federal court will find that the highest state court was given a full
15
and fair opportunity to hear a claim if the petitioner has presented the highest state court with the
16
claim's factual and legal basis. Duncan, 513 U.S. at 365 (legal basis); Kenney v. Tamayo-Reyes, 504
17
U.S. 1, 112 S.Ct. 1715, 1719 (1992) (factual basis).
18
Additionally, the petitioner must have specifically told the state court that he was raising a
19
federal constitutional claim. Duncan, 513 U.S. at 365-66; Lyons v. Crawford, 232 F.3d 666, 669 (9th
20
Cir. 2000), amended, 247 F.3d 904 (2001); Hiivala v. Wood, 195 F.3d 1098, 1106 (9th Cir. 1999);
21
Keating v. Hood, 133 F.3d 1240, 1241 (9th Cir. 1998). In Duncan, the United States Supreme Court
22
reiterated the rule as follows:
23
24
25
26
27
28
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.
Duncan, 513 U.S. at 365-366. The Ninth Circuit examined the rule further, stating:
2
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); . . . .
1
2
3
4
5
6
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.
7
8
9
10
Lyons v. Crawford, 232 F.3d 666, 668-669 (9th Cir. 2000) (italics added), as amended by Lyons v.
Crawford, 247 F.3d 904, 904-5 (9th Cir. 2001).
11
Where none of a petitioner’s claims has been presented to the highest state court as required by
12
the exhaustion doctrine, the Court must dismiss the petition. Raspberry v. Garcia, 448 F.3d 1150, 1154
13
(9th Cir. 2006); Jiminez v. Rice, 276 F.3d 478, 481 (9th Cir. 2001). The authority of a court to hold a
14
mixed petition in abeyance pending exhaustion of the unexhausted claims has not been extended to
15
petitions that contain no exhausted claims. Raspberry, 448 F.3d at 1154.
16
Here, Petitioner has alleged that he appeared in the Fresno County Superior Court on
17
September 8, 2015 for a hearing on a violation of parole, that Petitioner pleaded no contest to having
18
violated his parole, and was sentenced to an additional two years in prison. (Doc. 1, p. 1). Petitioner
19
alleges that he did not appeal the parole violation and has not pursued any other remedies in the state
20
courts related to this event. In his response to the Order to Show Cause, Petitioner stated that he had
21
filed a state habeas petition on October 22, 2015 in the Fresno County Superior Court, but that the
22
petition was denied. (Doc. 7, p. 1). Petitioner then argues that the Superior Court denial “left me with
23
no other resort but Federal Court to remedy this situation.” (Id.). Petitioner is mistaken, however,
24
that presenting his issues to the Superior Court is sufficient for exhaustion. As mentioned, he must
25
first present his claims to the California Supreme Court before he can raise them in this Court. Since
26
he has not done so, the Court has no alternative but to recommend the petition be dismissed. The
27
Court cannot entertain a petition that is entirely unexhausted. Raspberry, 448 F.3d at 1154.
28
///
3
ORDER
1
2
3
For the foregoing reasons, the Court HEREBY DIRECTS the Clerk of the Court to assign a
United States District Judge to this case.
4
RECOMMENDATION
5
Accordingly, the Court RECOMMENDS that the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus be
6
7
DISMISSED for lack of exhaustion.
This Findings and Recommendation is submitted to the United States District Court Judge
8
assigned to the case pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(B) and Rule 304 of the Local
9
Rules of Practice for the United States District Court, Eastern District of California. Within 21 days
10
after being served with a copy of this Findings and Recommendation, any party may file written
11
objections with the Court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned
12
“Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendation.” Replies to the Objections shall be
13
served and filed within 10 days (plus three days if served by mail) after service of the Objections. The
14
Court will then review the Magistrate Judge’s ruling pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(C). The parties
15
are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the
16
Order of the District Court. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).
17
18
19
20
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:
November 12, 2015
/s/ Jennifer L. Thurston
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4
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?