Nash v. Unknown

Filing 4

FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATION to Summarily Dismiss Unexhausted Petition 1 , Clerk to Assign a District Judge, signed by Magistrate Judge Jennifer L. Thurston on 3/1/17. Referred to Judge Ishii. Objections to F&R Due Within Twenty-One Days. Case Assigned to District Judge Anthony W. Ishii and Magistrate Judge Jennifer L. Thurston. The New Case Number is: 1:17cv-00238-JLT (HC). (Gonzalez, R)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

ANGELIQUE E. NASH,

12

Petitioner,

13
14

v.
ON HABEAS CORPUS,

15

No. 1:17-cv-00238-JLT (HC)
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION
TO SUMMARILY DISMISS
UNEXHAUSTED PETITION
[TWENTY-ONE DAY OBJECTION
DEADLINE]

Respondent.

16
Petitioner filed a habeas petition on February 17, 2017, challenging her 2013 conviction in

17
18

Kern County Superior Court of first degree murder with special circumstances. Because the

19

petition is unexhausted, the Court will recommend it be DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
DISCUSSION

20
21
22

A.

Preliminary Review of Petition
Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases allows a district court to dismiss a

23

petition if it “plainly appears from the petition and any attached exhibits that the petitioner is not

24

entitled to relief in the district court . . . .” Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases.

25

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

26

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

27

dismiss, or after an answer to the petition has been filed. Herbst v. Cook, 260 F.3d 1039 (9th

28

Cir.2001).
1

1

B.

Exhaustion

2

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

3

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

4

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

5

opportunity to correct the state's alleged constitutional deprivations. Coleman v. Thompson, 501

6

U.S. 722, 731 (1991); Rose v. Lundy, 455 U.S. 509, 518 (1982).

7

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

8

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

9

Duncan v. Henry, 513 U.S. 364, 365 (1995). A federal court will find that the highest state court

10

was given a full and fair opportunity to hear a claim if the petitioner has presented the highest

11

state court with the claim's factual and legal basis. Duncan, 513 U.S. at 365 (legal basis); Kenney

12

v. Tamayo-Reyes, 504 U.S. 1, 112 S.Ct. 1715, 1719 (1992) (factual basis).

13

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

14

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

15

Supreme Court reiterated the rule as follows:

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
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:
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); . . . .
2

1
2
3

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.

4

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

5

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

6

From the petition, it appears that Petitioner has not presented her claims to the California

7

Supreme Court as required by the exhaustion doctrine. That being the case, the Court must

8

dismiss the petition. Raspberry v. Garcia, 448 F.3d 1150, 1154 (9th Cir. 2006); Jiminez v. Rice,

9

276 F.3d 478, 481 (9th Cir. 2001). The Court cannot consider a petition that is entirely

10

unexhausted. Rose v. Lundy, 455 U.S. 509, 521-22 (1982).
ORDER

11
12

The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to assign a District Judge to the case.
RECOMMENDATION

13
14
15
16

Accordingly, the Court RECOMMENDS that the habeas corpus petition be DISMISSED
WITHOUT PREJUDICE for lack of exhaustion.
This Findings and Recommendation is submitted to the United States District Court Judge

17

assigned to this case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. section 636 (b)(1)(B) and Rule 304

18

of the Local Rules of Practice for the United States District Court, Eastern District of California.

19

Within twenty-one days after being served with a copy, Petitioner may file written objections

20

with the Court. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings

21

and Recommendation.” The Court will then review the Magistrate Judge’s ruling pursuant to 28

22

U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(C). Failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to

23

appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

24
25
26

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

March 1, 2017

/s/ Jennifer L. Thurston
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

27
28
3