Landa v. People of the State of California

Filing 5

ORDER to SHOW CAUSE Why the Petition Should Not Be Dismissed for Petitioner's Failure to Exhaust State Remedies signed by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Seng on 5/10/2017. Show Cause Response due within thirty (30) days. (Jessen, A)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

DANIEL J. LANDA,

12
13
14
15
16

Petitioner,
v.
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF
CALIFORNIA,

Case No. 1:17-cv-00581-MJS (HC)
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THE
PETITION SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED
FOR PETITIONER’S FAILURE TO
EXHAUST STATE REMEDIES
(ECF No. 1)

Respondent.
THIRTY (30) DAY DEADLINE

17
18
19
20
21

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

22

corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Petitioner challenges a December 27, 2016

23

conviction from the Kern County Superior Court. (Pet., ECF No. 1.) In his petition,

24

Petitioner states that his notice of appeal, filed in the Kern County Superior Court, was

25

rejected as untimely on April 10, 2017. (ECF No. 1 at 8.) Petitioner does not state

26

whether he has pursued any other review of his conviction or presented his claims to the

27

California Supreme Court.

28

1

I.

Discussion

2

Rule 4 of the Rules Governing § 2254 Cases requires the Court to make a

3

preliminary review of each petition for writ of habeas corpus. The Court must dismiss a

4

petition "[i]f it plainly appears from the petition . . . that the petitioner is not entitled to

5

relief." Rule 4 of the Rules Governing § 2254 Cases; Hendricks v. Vasquez, 908 F.2d

6

490 (9th Cir. 1990). Otherwise, the Court will order Respondent to respond to the

7

petition. Rule 5 of the Rules Governing § 2254 Cases.

8

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

9

conviction by a petition for writ of habeas corpus must exhaust state judicial remedies.

10

28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(1). The exhaustion doctrine is based on comity to the state court

11

and gives the state court the initial opportunity to correct the state's alleged constitutional

12

deprivations. Coleman v. Thompson, 501 U.S. 722, 731 (1991); Rose v. Lundy, 455 U.S.

13

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

14

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

15

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

16

federal court. Duncan v. Henry, 513 U.S. 364, 365 (1995); Picard v. Connor, 404 U.S.

17

270, 276 (1971); Johnson v. Zenon, 88 F.3d 828, 829 (9th Cir. 1996). A federal court will

18

find that the highest state court was given a full and fair opportunity to hear a claim if the

19

petitioner has presented the highest state court with the claim's factual and legal basis.

20

Duncan, 513 U.S. at 365 (legal basis); Kenney v. Tamayo-Reyes, 504 U.S. 1, 9 (1992)

21

(factual basis).

22

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

23

raising a federal constitutional claim. Duncan, 513 U.S. at 365-66; Lyons v. Crawford,

24

232 F.3d 666, 669 (9th Cir.2000), amended, 247 F.3d 904 (2001); Hiivala v. Wood, 195

25

F.3d 1098, 1106 (9th Cir.1999); Keating v. Hood, 133 F.3d 1240, 1241 (9th Cir.1998). In

26

Duncan, the United States Supreme Court reiterated the rule as follows:

27
28

In Picard v. Connor, 404 U.S. 270, 275 . . . (1971), we said that
exhaustion of state remedies requires that petitioners "fairly present"
2

1

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.

2
3
4
5
6

Duncan, 513 U.S. at 365-366. The Ninth Circuit examined the rule further, stating:

7

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); . . . .

8
9
10
11
12
13
14

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.

15
16

Lyons v. Crawford, 232 F.3d 666, 668-669 (9th Cir. 2000).

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27

Upon review of the instant petition for writ of habeas corpus, it appears that
Petitioner has not presented his claims to the highest state court, the California Supreme
Court. Petitioner must inform the Court if, in fact, his claims have been presented to the
California Supreme Court, and if possible, provide the Court with a copy of the petition
filed in the California Supreme Court along with a copy of any ruling made by the
California Supreme Court. Without knowing what claims, if any, have been presented to
the California Supreme Court, the Court is unable to proceed to the merits of the petition.
28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(1).
II.

Order
Accordingly, Petitioner is ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE why the petition should

not be dismissed for Petitioner’s failure to exhaust state remedies. Petitioner is

28
3

1

ORDERED to inform the Court what claims have been presented to the California

2

Supreme Court within thirty (30) days of the date of service of this order.

3
4

Petitioner is forewarned that failure to follow this order will result in dismissal of
the petition pursuant to Local Rule 110.

5
6
7

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

May 10, 2017

/s/

8

Michael J. Seng

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4