Kelley v. Corcoran State Prison

Filing 7

ORDER DISMISSING Without Prejudice Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, DIRECTING Clerk of Court to Close Case, an DECLINING to Issue Certificate of Appealability, signed by Magistrate Judge Erica P. Grosjean on 3/31/17. (CASE CLOSED)(Hellings, J)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

PATRICK D. KELLEY, JR.,
Petitioner,

12

ORDER DISMISSING WITHOUT
PREJUDICE PETITION FOR WRIT OF
HABEAS CORPUS, DIRECTING CLERK
OF COURT TO CLOSE CASE, AND
DECLINING TO ISSUE CERTIFICATE OF
APPEALABILITY

v.

13
14

Case No. 1:17-cv-00278- EPG-HC

CORCORAN STATE PRISON,

15

Respondent.

16
17

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

18 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 wherein he challenges the California Department of Corrections
19 and Rehabilitation’s calculation of his sentence. As Petitioner’s claim is unexhausted, the Court
20 finds that dismissal of the petition without prejudice is warranted.
21

I.

22

BACKGROUND

23

On February 27, 2017, Petitioner filed the instant federal petition for writ of habeas

24 corpus. (ECF No. 1). On March 9, 2017, the Court ordered Petitioner to show cause why the
25 petition should not be dismissed for failure to exhaust state judicial remedies. (ECF No. 4). On
26 March 21, 2017, Petitioner filed his response. (ECF No. 6). Petitioner has consented to the
27 jurisdiction of the United States Magistrate Judge. (ECF No. 5).
28 ///

1

1

II.

2

DISCUSSION

3

A. Exhaustion

4

Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases requires preliminary review of a

5 habeas petition and allows a district court to dismiss a petition before the respondent is ordered
6 to file a response, if it “plainly appears from the petition and any attached exhibits that the
7 petitioner is not entitled to relief in the district court.” A petitioner in state custody who is
8 proceeding with a petition for writ of habeas corpus must exhaust state judicial remedies. 28
9 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(1). The exhaustion doctrine is based on comity to the state court and gives the
10 state court the initial opportunity to correct the state’s alleged constitutional deprivations.
11 Coleman v. Thompson, 501 U.S. 722, 731 (1991); Rose v. Lundy, 455 U.S. 509, 518 (1982). A
12 petitioner can satisfy the exhaustion requirement by providing the highest state court with a full
13 and fair opportunity to consider each claim before presenting it to the federal court. O’Sullivan v.
14 Boerckel, 526 U.S. 838, 845 (1999); Duncan v. Henry, 513 U.S. 364, 365 (1995); Picard v.
15 Connor, 404 U.S. 270, 276 (1971).
Here, the petition states that Petitioner’s claim has been appealed to the third level of

16

17 administrative review. (ECF No. 1 at 8).1 The petition also indicates that Petitioner has not filed
18 any other petitions, applications, or motions with respect to this issue. (Id. at 9). In his response
19 to the order to show cause, Petitioner states, “I received this notices. However, I’m confused due
20 to its making as I filed this HC petition in California Supreme Court which is false. . . . I’m
21 clarifying that on 2-2-17 this matter is brought only to your court.” (ECF No. 6). If Petitioner has
22 not sought relief in the California Supreme Court for the claim that he raises in the instant
23 petition, this Court cannot proceed to the merits of that claim. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(1). The Court
24 must dismiss without prejudice a petition containing unexhausted claims to give a petitioner an
25 opportunity to exhaust the claims if he can do so. See Lundy, 455 U.S. at 522.
26 ///
27 ///
28

1

Page numbers refer to the ECF page numbers stamped at the top of the page.

2

1

B. Certificate of Appealability

2

A state prisoner seeking a writ of habeas corpus has no absolute entitlement to appeal a

3 district court’s denial of his petition, and an appeal is only allowed in certain circumstances.
4 Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 335-36 (2003). The controlling statute in determining
5 whether to issue a certificate of appealability is 28 U.S.C. § 2253, which provides as follows:
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21

(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.
(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.
(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–
(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
(B) the final order in a proceeding under section 2255.
(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.
(3) The certificate of appealability under paragraph (1) shall
indicate which specific issue or issues satisfy the showing
required by paragraph (2).
If a court denies habeas relief on procedural grounds without reaching the underlying

22 constitutional claims, the court should issue a certificate of appealability “if jurists of reason
23 would find it debatable whether the petition states a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional
24 right and that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the district court was correct in its
25 procedural ruling.” Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). “Where a plain procedural bar
26 is present and the district court is correct to invoke it to dispose of the case, a reasonable jurist
27 could not conclude either that the district court erred in dismissing the petition or that the
28 petitioner should be allowed to proceed further.” Id.

3

1

In the present case, the Court finds that reasonable jurists would not find the Court’s

2 determination that Petitioner’s federal habeas corpus petition should be dismissed debatable or
3 wrong, or that Petitioner should be allowed to proceed further. Therefore, the Court declines to
4 issue a certificate of appealability.
5

III.

6

ORDER

7

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

8

1. The petition for writ of habeas corpus is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE;

9

2. The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to CLOSE the case; and

10

3. The Court DECLINES to issue a certificate of appealability.

11
12
13

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

March 31, 2017

/s/
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

4