Hunwardsen v. Ducart

Filing 25

ORDER GRANTING Respondent's 17 Motion to Dismiss, DISMISSING Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus without prejudice, DIRECTING Clerk of Court to Close Case and DECLINING TO ISSUE CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY,signed by Magistrate Judge Erica P. Grosjean on 03/8/17.CASE CLOSED (Martin-Gill, S)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JASON GRANT HUNWARDSEN, 14 15 ORDER GRANTING RESPONDENT’S MOTION TO DISMISS, DISMISSING PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS WITHOUT PREJUDICE, DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT TO CLOSE CASE, AND DECLINING TO ISSUE CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY Petitioner, 12 13 Case No. 1:16-cv-00935-EPG-HC v. CLARK DUCART, Respondent. 16 (ECF No. 17) 17 18 Petitioner Jason Grant Hunwardsen is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition 19 for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The parties have consented to the 20 jurisdiction of the United States Magistrate Judge. (ECF Nos. 11, 14). 21 As the claims raised in the instant petition either are unexhausted or fail to state a 22 cognizable federal claim, the Court finds granting Respondent’s motion to dismiss and 23 dismissing the petition without prejudice is warranted. 24 I. 25 BACKGROUND 26 In 2013, Petitioner was convicted by a jury in the Merced County Superior Court of 27 inflicting corporal injury upon a cohabitant and making criminal threats. The jury also found true 28 enhancements for infliction of great bodily injury and use of a deadly weapon. Petitioner 1 1 admitted the prior conviction and prior prison allegations, and was sentenced to an imprisonment 2 term of twenty-six years and four months. People v. Hunwardsen, No. F068675, 2015 WL 3 5943471, at *1, 4 (Cal. Ct. App. Oct. 13, 2015). On October 13, 2015, the California Court of 4 Appeal, Fifth Appellate District affirmed the judgment. Id. at *14. The California Court of 5 Appeal denied the petition for rehearing, and the California Supreme Court denied the petition 6 for review. (LDs1 6, 8). On June 21, 2016, Petitioner filed the instant federal petition for writ of habeas corpus in 7 8 the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. (ECF No. 1). On June 27, 9 2016, the petition was transferred to this Court. (ECF No. 4). On October 3, 2016, Respondent 10 filed a motion to dismiss, arguing that five of Petitioner’s six claims were unexhausted and the 11 sole exhausted claim was not cognizable in federal habeas. (ECF No. 17). In his opposition, 12 Petitioner appears to acknowledge that five of his six claims are unexhausted and requests the 13 Court to hold the petition in abeyance pending resolution of the unexhausted claims in state 14 court. (ECF No. 23). 15 II. 16 DISCUSSION 17 A. Exhaustion 18 A petitioner in state custody who is proceeding with a petition for writ of habeas corpus 19 must exhaust state judicial remedies. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(1). The exhaustion doctrine is based 20 on comity to the state court and gives the state court the initial opportunity to correct the state’s 21 alleged constitutional deprivations. Coleman v. Thompson, 501 U.S. 722, 731 (1991); Rose v. 22 Lundy, 455 U.S. 509, 518 (1982). A petitioner can satisfy the exhaustion requirement by 23 providing the highest state court with a full and fair opportunity to consider each claim before 24 presenting it to the federal court. O’Sullivan v. Boerckel, 526 U.S. 838, 845 (1999); Duncan v. 25 Henry, 513 U.S. 364, 365 (1995); Picard v. Connor, 404 U.S. 270, 276 (1971). To provide the 26 highest state court the necessary opportunity, the petitioner must “fairly present” the claim with 27 28 1 “LD” refers to the documents lodged by Respondent on October 4, 2016. (ECF No. 18). 2 1 “reference to a specific federal constitutional guarantee, as well as a statement of the facts that 2 entitle the petitioner to relief.” Duncan, 513 U.S. at 365; Gray v. Netherland, 518 U.S. 152, 162– 3 63 (1996). See also Davis v. Silva, 511 F.3d 1005, 1009 (9th Cir. 2008). 4 In the instant petition, Petitioner raises the following six claims for relief: (1) the trial 5 court’s erroneous denial of Petitioner’s request for mistrial after the victim testified about his 6 prior incarceration and parole; (2) the erroneous admission of the victim’s hospital records; (3) 7 the erroneous admission of Petitioner’s prior uncharged violent acts against the victim under 8 California Evidence Code section 1109; (4) ineffective assistance of trial counsel for not moving 9 to redact the tape of the victim’s police interview; (5) ineffective assistance of trial counsel for 10 not moving to exclude one of Petitioner’s prior acts of domestic violence, which had been 11 dismissed for insufficient evidence; and (6) the trial court and the parties’ error in stipulating that 12 the court reporter need not transcribe the court’s oral instructions to the jury. 13 Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, and 6 are unexhausted. Although all six claims were raised on direct 14 appeal to the California Court of Appeal, the only claim presented to the California Supreme 15 Court in the petition for review was claim 3—whether California Evidence Code section 1109 16 creates a legislative presumption of admissibility of prior uncharged acts of domestic violence. 17 (LDs 1, 7). Petitioner appears to acknowledge that he raises five claims that are unexhausted, and 18 therefore requests the Court to hold the petition in abeyance pending resolution of the 19 unexhausted claims in state court. (ECF No. 23). 20 Under Rhines v. Weber, “stay and abeyance” is available only in limited circumstances, 21 and only when: (1) there is “good cause” for the failure to exhaust; (2) the unexhausted claims 22 are not “plainly meritless”; and (3) the petitioner did not intentionally engage in dilatory 23 litigation tactics. 544 U.S. 269, 277–78 (2005). Petitioner asserts that he was not aware that 24 appellate counsel failed to exhaust five of his claims. (Id.). The Ninth Circuit has held that a 25 petitioner’s “‘impression’ that counsel had exhausted an unexhausted claim does not constitute 26 ‘good cause’ for failure to exhaust that claim.” Wooten v. Kirkland, 540 F.3d 1019, 1024 (9th 27 Cir. 2008). Accordingly, the Court finds that Petitioner has failed to demonstrate good cause for 28 his failure to exhaust under Rhines and is not entitled to a stay. 3 1 Rhines directs that “if a petitioner presents a district court with a mixed petition and the 2 court determines that stay and abeyance is inappropriate, the court should allow the petitioner to 3 delete the unexhausted claims and to proceed with the exhausted claims if dismissal of the entire 4 petition would unreasonably impair the petitioner’s right to obtain federal relief.” Rhines, 544 5 U.S. at 278. However, as discussed in section II(B), infra, the sole exhausted claim only raises an 6 error of state law, which is not cognizable in federal habeas corpus. Therefore, dismissal of the 7 entire petition is appropriate. 8 B. Cognizability of Claim 3 in Federal Habeas 9 With respect to claim 3, the sole exhausted claim in the petition, Petitioner alleges that 10 the trial court erroneously admitted evidence of Petitioner’s prior uncharged violent acts against 11 the victim under California Evidence Code section 1109. (ECF No. 1 at 7). Whether such 12 evidence was incorrectly admitted under the California Evidence Code is an issue of state law, 13 and errors of state law do not warrant federal habeas corpus relief. See Estelle v. McGuire, 502 14 U.S. 62, 67–68 (1991) (“We have stated many times that ‘federal habeas corpus relief does not 15 lie for errors of state law.’ Today, we reemphasize that it is not the province of a federal habeas 16 court to reexamine state-court determinations on state-law questions.”) (citations omitted); 17 Langford v. Day, 110 F.3d 1380, 1389 (9th Cir. 1996) (“We accept a state court’s interpretation 18 of state law, and alleged errors in the application of state law are not cognizable in federal habeas 19 corpus.”) (citations omitted). Accordingly, claim 3 of the petition is not cognizable in federal 20 habeas corpus and should be dismissed. 21 C. Certificate of Appealability 22 Having found that Petitioner is not entitled to habeas relief, the Court now turns to the 23 question of whether a certificate of appealability should issue. See Rule 11, Rules Governing 24 Section 2254 Cases. A state prisoner seeking a writ of habeas corpus has no absolute entitlement 25 to appeal a district court’s denial of his petition, and an appeal is only allowed in certain 26 circumstances. Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 335–36 (2003). 27 The controlling statute in determining whether to issue a certificate of appealability is 28 28 U.S.C. § 2253, which provides: 4 1 2 (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. 3 4 5 (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. 6 7 (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– 8 9 (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 10 (B) the final order in a proceeding under section 2255. 11 12 (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. 13 14 (3) The certificate of appealability under paragraph (1) shall indicate which specific issue or issues satisfy the showing required by paragraph (2). 15 16 If a court denies habeas relief on procedural grounds without reaching the underlying 17 constitutional claims, the court should issue a certificate of appealability “if jurists of reason 18 would find it debatable whether the petition states a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional 19 right and that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the district court was correct in its 20 procedural ruling.” Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). “Where a plain procedural bar 21 is present and the district court is correct to invoke it to dispose of the case, a reasonable jurist 22 could not conclude either that the district court erred in dismissing the petition or that the 23 petitioner should be allowed to proceed further.” Id. 24 In the present case, the Court finds that reasonable jurists would not find the Court’s 25 determination that Petitioner’s federal habeas corpus petition should be dismissed debatable or 26 wrong, or that Petitioner should be allowed to proceed further. Therefore, the Court declines to 27 issue a certificate of appealability. 28 /// 5 1 III. 2 ORDER 3 Accordingly, the Court HEREBY ORDERS that: 4 1. Respondent’s motion to dismiss (ECF No. 17) is GRANTED; 5 2. The petition for writ of habeas corpus is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE; 6 3. The Clerk of Court is directed to CLOSE the case; and 7 4. The Court DECLINES to issue a certificate of appealability. 8 9 10 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: March 8, 2017 /s/ UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 6

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?