Castro, Jr. v. Kern County Superior Court

Filing 6

ORDER DISMISSING Petition and Declining to Issue Certificate of Appealability; Clerk to Terminate Motions and Close Case, signed by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Seng on 6/20/17. CASE CLOSED. (Gonzalez, R)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
10

FRANCISCO MEJIA CASTRO, JR.,

11
12
13
14

Petitioner,
v.
KERN COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT,

Case No. 1:17-cv-00584-MJS (HC)
ORDER DISMISSING PETITION AND
DECLINING TO ISSUE CERTIFICATE OF
APPEALABILITY
(ECF No. 1)

Respondent.

15

CLERK TO TERMINATE MOTIONS AND
CLOSE CASE

16
17
18
19

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

20

corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. He has consented to Magistrate Judge jurisdiction

21

for all purposes. (ECF No. 5.)

22

Petitioner challenges a June 10, 2016 conviction from the Kern County Superior

23

Court. (Pet., ECF No. 1.) In his petition, Petitioner states that he did not seek review of

24

the claims presented in the petition from any state court.

25

On May 11, 2017, the Court ordered Petitioner to show cause why the action

26

should not be dismissed for failure to exhaust state judicial remedies. (ECF No. 4.)

27

Petitioner filed no response and the time for doing so has passed.

28

1

I.

Screening the Petition

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

II.

Exhaustion

9

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

10

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

11

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

12

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

13

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

14

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

15

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

16

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

17

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

18

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

19

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

20

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

21

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

22

(factual basis).

23

The instant petition reflects that Petitioner has not pursued any state judicial

24

remedies, let alone presented his claims to the highest state court. He was ordered to

25

show cause why the petition should not be dismissed for failure to exhaust, and to

26

address whether his claims had, in fact, been presented to the California Supreme

27

Court. (ECF No. 4.) He failed to respond. Because the record before the Court reflects

28
2

1

that Petitioner has failed to exhaust, the Court is unable to proceed to the merits of the

2

claims. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(1). The Court is required to dismiss the petition.

3

III.

Certificate of Appealability

4

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

5

a district court’s dismissal of his petition; an appeal is only allowed in certain

6

circumstances.

7

statute in determining whether to issue a certificate of appealability is 28 U.S.C. § 2253,

8

which provides as follows:

9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16

Miller-El v. Cockrell, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 1039 (2003). The controlling

(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–

17

(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

18

(B) the final order in a proceeding under section 2255.

19
20
21
22

(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).

23

If a court denies a petitioner’s petition, the court may only issue a certificate of

24

appealability “if jurists of reason could disagree with the district court’s resolution of his

25

constitutional claims or that jurists could conclude the issues presented are adequate to

26

deserve encouragement to proceed further.” Miller-El, 123 S.Ct. at 1034; Slack v.

27

McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). While the petitioner is not required to prove the

28
3

1

merits of his case, he must demonstrate “something more than the absence of frivolity or

2

the existence of mere good faith on his . . . part.” Miller-El, 123 S.Ct. at 1040.

3

Reasonable jurists would not find the Court's dismissal of the petition to be

4

debatable or wrong, or conclude that the issues presented required further adjudication.

5

Accordingly, the Court declines to issue a certificate of appealability.

6

IV.

7

Order
Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

8

1. The petition is dismissed without prejudice for failure to exhaust state

9

judicial remedies;

10

2. The Court declines to issue a certificate of appealability; and

11

3. The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate any pending motions and close

12

the case.

13
14
15

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

June 20, 2017

/s/

16

Michael J. Seng

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4