Ochoa v. Price

Filing 3

ORDER to SHOW CAUSE Why the Petition Should Not Be Dismissed for Lack of Exhaustion; ORDER DIRECTING that Response be Filed within Thirty Days,signed by Magistrate Judge Jennifer L. Thurston on 12/2/2015. (30-Day Deadline) (Martin-Gill, S)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

LEONARD LOUIE OCHOA,

12

Petitioner,

13
14

v.
STERLING PRICE,

15

Respondent.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No.: 1:15-cv-01769-JLT
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THE PETITION
SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED FOR LACK OF
EXHAUSTION
ORDER DIRECTING THAT RESPONSE BE
FILED WITHIN THIRTY DAYS

16
17

Preliminary review of the petition reveals that it contains claims that have not been exhausted

18

in state court which would require the Court to dismiss the petition. Thus, here the Court ORDERS

19

Petitioner to show cause why the petition should not be dismissed as unexhausted.

20

I.

DISCUSSION

21

A. Preliminary Review of Petition.

22

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

23

if it “plainly appears from the face of the petition and any exhibits annexed to it that the petitioner is

24

not entitled to relief in the district court . . . .” Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. The

25

Advisory Committee Notes to Rule 8 indicate that the court may dismiss a petition for writ of habeas

26

corpus, either on its own motion under Rule 4, pursuant to the respondent’s motion to dismiss, or after

27

an answer to the petition has been filed. Herbst v. Cook, 260 F.3d 1039 (9th Cir.2001).

28

///
1

1

B. Exhaustion.

2

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

3

petition for writ of habeas corpus must exhaust state judicial remedies. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(1). The

4

exhaustion doctrine is based on comity to the state and gives the state court the initial opportunity to

5

correct the alleged constitutional deprivations. Coleman v. Thompson, 501 U.S. 722, 731 (1991);

6

Rose v. Lundy, 455 U.S. 509, 518 (1982); Buffalo v. Sunn, 854 F.2d 1158, 1163 (9th Cir. 1988).

7

A petitioner can satisfy the exhaustion requirement by providing the highest state court with a

8

full and fair opportunity to consider each claim before presenting it to the federal court. Duncan v.

9

Henry, 513 U.S. 364, 365 (1995); Picard v. Connor, 404 U.S. 270, 276 (1971); Johnson v. Zenon, 88

10

F.3d 828, 829 (9th Cir. 1996). A federal court will find that the highest state court was given a full

11

and fair opportunity to hear a claim if the petitioner has presented the highest state court with the

12

claim's factual and legal basis. Duncan, 513 U.S. at 365 (legal basis); Kenney v. Tamayo-Reyes, 504

13

U.S. 1, 112 S.Ct. 1715, 1719 (1992) (factual basis).

14

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

15

federal constitutional claim. Duncan, 513 U.S. at 365-66. In Duncan, the United States Supreme

16

Court reiterated the rule as follows:

17
18
19
20
21
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.
Duncan, 513 U.S. at 365-366. The Ninth Circuit examined the rule further, stating:
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); . . . .

28
2

1
2

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.

3

Lyons v. Crawford, 232 F.3d 666, 668-669 (9th Cir. 2000) (italics added), as amended by Lyons v.

4

Crawford, 247 F.3d 904, 904-5 (9th Cir. 2001).

5

Where none of a petitioner’s claims has been presented to the highest state court as required by

6

the exhaustion doctrine, the Court must dismiss the petition. Raspberry v. Garcia, 448 F.3d 1150, 1154

7

(9th Cir. 2006); Jiminez v. Rice, 276 F.3d 478, 481 (9th Cir. 2001). The authority of a court to hold a

8

mixed petition in abeyance pending exhaustion of the unexhausted claims has not been extended to

9

petitions that contain no exhausted claims. Raspberry, 448 F.3d at 1154.

10

Here, Petitioner seems to be challenging his continued detention resulting from a 2014

11

conviction based on a guilty plea. Petitioner contends that the sentencing judge failed to consider

12

three pages of a thirteen page transcript and, therefore, his continued detention is erroneous. Petitioner

13

indicates that he has previously filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus in the Superior Court, which

14

was rejected on state procedural grounds. However, Petitioner does not indicate that he has pursued

15

any other remedies, i.e., in the Court of Appeal or in the California Supreme Court.

16

From the foregoing, it appears that Petitioner has not presented any of his claims to the

17

California Supreme Court as required by the exhaustion doctrine. Because Petitioner has not

18

presented his claims for federal relief to the California Supreme Court, the Court must dismiss the

19

petition. See Calderon v. United States Dist. Court, 107 F.3d 756, 760 (9th Cir. 1997) (en banc);

20

Greenawalt v. Stewart, 105 F.3d 1268, 1273 (9th Cir. 1997). The Court cannot consider a petition that

21

is entirely unexhausted. Rose v. Lundy, 455 U.S. 509, 521-22 (1982); Calderon, 107 F.3d at 760.

22

However, it is possible that Petitioner has exhausted his claims by presenting them to the

23

California Supreme Court, and simply failed to provide the Court with the documents and information

24

that would establish such exhaustion. Accordingly, Petitioner will be permitted thirty days within

25

which to respond to this Order To Show Cause by filing a response containing evidence that the

26

claims herein are indeed exhausted. If Petitioner is unable to establish that he has presented these

27

claims to the California Supreme Court, the Court will issue Findings and Recommendations to

28

dismiss the petition for lack of exhaustion.
3

ORDER

1
2

For the foregoing reasons, the Court HEREBY ORDERS as follows:

3

1. Within 30 days Petitioner is ORDERED to show cause in writing why the Petition

4

should not be dismissed for failure to exhaust remedies in state court.

5
6

Petitioner is forewarned his failure to comply with this order may result in a
Recommendation that the Petition be dismissed pursuant to Local Rule 110.

7
8
9
10

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

December 2, 2015

/s/ Jennifer L. Thurston
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4