Thomas v. People of the State of California

Filing 7

ORDER DISMISSING PETITION for WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS WITH LEAVE TO AMEND signed by Magistrate Judge Sheila K. Oberto on 12/04/2017. Amended Complaint due by 1/8/2018. (Attachments: # 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus)(Flores, E)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

8
9
DEONTRAY THOMAS,

10

Case No. 1:17-cv-01546-SKO HC

Petitioner,

11

ORDER DISMISSING PETITION
FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS
WITH LEAVE TO AMEND

v.

12

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF
CALIFORNIA,

13
14

Respondent.

(Doc. 1)

15
16

SCREENING ORDER

17
18

Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas corpus
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254,1 filed his petition on a state habeas corpus form. The petition seeks

19
20
21

review of a decision of the California state trial court.
I.

Preliminary Screening
Rule 4 of the Rules Governing § 2254 Cases requires the Court to conduct a preliminary

22
23

review of each petition for writ of habeas corpus. The Court must dismiss a petition "[i]f it plainly

24

appears from the petition . . . that the petitioner is not entitled to relief." Rule 4 of the Rules

25

Governing 2254 Cases; see also Hendricks v. Vasquez, 908 F.2d 490, 491 (9th Cir. 1990). A

26
petition for habeas corpus should not be dismissed without leave to amend unless it appears that no
27
28

1

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c)(1), Petitioner consented, in writing, to the jurisdiction of a United States Magistrate
Judge to conduct all further proceedings in this case, including the entry of final judgment.

1

1

tenable claim for relief can be pleaded were such leave to be granted. Jarvis v. Nelson, 440 F.2d 13,

2

14 (9th Cir. 1971).

3

II.

4
5
6

Procedural and Factual Background
Petitioner filed his petition on November 13, 2017, but did not include any of the factual and

procedural background of his case. If Petitioner elects to amend his petition, as this order permits
him to do, he must set forth the factual and procedural history in a brief, clear, and simple manner,

7
using the form of petition for habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, which the Clerk of Court
8
9
10

will forward to him with his copy of this order.
III.

Standard of Review

11

Habeas corpus is neither a substitute for a direct appeal nor a device for federal review of the

12

merits of a guilty verdict rendered in state court. Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 332 n. 5 (1979)

13
14

(Stevens, J., concurring). Habeas corpus relief is intended to address only "extreme malfunctions" in
state criminal justice proceedings. Id.

15
Because the petition was filed after April 24, 1996, the effective date of the Antiterrorism

16
17

and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA), the Court must apply its provisions. Lindh v.

18

Murphy, 521 U.S. 320, 327 (1997); Jeffries v. Wood, 114 F.3d 1484, 1499 (9th Cir. 1997), overruled

19

on other grounds by Gonzalez v. Arizona, 677 F.3d 383 (9th Cir. 2012). Under AEDPA, a petitioner

20

can prevail only if he can show that the state court's adjudication of his claim:

21

(1) resulted in a decision that was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable
application of, clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme
Court of the United States; or

22
23

(2) resulted in a decision that was based on an unreasonable determination of the
facts in light of the evidence presented in the State court proceeding.

24
25

28 U.S.C. § 2254(d); Lockyer v. Andrade, 538 U.S. 63, 70-71 (2003); Williams v. Taylor,

26
529 U.S. 362, 413 (2000).
27
28

//
2

1

"By its terms, § 2254(d) bars relitigation of any claim 'adjudicated on the merits' in state

2

court, subject only to the exceptions set forth in §§ 2254(d)(1) and (d)(2)." Harrington v. Richter,

3

562 U.S. 86, 98 (2011).

4

As a threshold matter, a federal court must first determine what constitutes "clearly

5

established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States." Lockyer, 538

6

U.S. at 71. To do so, the Court must look to the holdings, as opposed to the dicta, of the Supreme

7
Court's decisions at the time of the relevant state-court decision. Id. The court must then consider
8
9

whether the state court's decision was "contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of,

10

clearly established Federal law." Id. at 72. The state court need not have cited clearly established

11

Supreme Court precedent; it is sufficient that neither the reasoning nor the result of the state court

12

contradicts it. Early v. Packer, 537 U.S. 3, 8 (2002). The federal court must apply the presumption

13
14

that state courts know and follow the law. Woodford v. Visciotti, 537 U.S. 19, 24 (2002). The
petitioner has the burden of establishing that the decision of the state court is contrary to, or involved

15
16
17

an unreasonable application of, United States Supreme Court precedent. Baylor v. Estelle, 94 F.3d
1321, 1325 (9th Cir. 1996).

18

The AEDPA standard is difficult to satisfy since even a strong case for relief does not

19

demonstrate that the state court's determination was unreasonable. Harrington, 562 U.S. at 102. "A

20

federal habeas court may not issue the writ simply because the court concludes in its independent

21

judgment that the relevant state-court decision applied clearly established federal law erroneously or

22
incorrectly." Lockyer, 538 U.S. at 75-76. "A state court's determination that a claim lacks merit
23
24

precludes federal habeas relief so long as 'fairminded jurists could disagree' on the correctness of the

25

state court's decision." Harrington, 562 U.S. at 101 (quoting Yarborough v. Alvarado, 541 U.S. 652,

26

664 (2004)). Put another way, a federal court may grant habeas relief only when the state court's

27

application of Supreme Court precedent was objectively unreasonable and no fair-minded jurist

28

could disagree that the state court's decision conflicted with Supreme Court's precedent. Williams,
3

1
2

529 U.S. at 411.
IV.

Appropriate Respondent

3

Petitioner names the State of California as the Respondent, which is not a proper respondent

4

in a federal habeas action. A petitioner who is seeking habeas corpus relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254

5

must name as the respondent only the state officer having custody of him as the respondent to the

6

petition. Habeas Rule 2(a); Ortiz-Sandoval v. Gomez, 81 F.3d 891, 894 (9th Cir. 1996); Stanley v.

7
California Supreme Court, 21 F.3d 359, 360 (9th Cir. 1994). Generally, the person having custody
8
9

of an incarcerated petitioner is the warden of the prison in which the petitioner is incarcerated

10

because the warden has “day-to-day control over” the petitioner and thus can produce the petitioner.

11

Brittingham v. United States, 982 F.2d 378, 379 (9th Cir. 1992). The chief officer in charge of state

12

penal institutions, such as the Secretary of the CDCR, is also appropriate. Ortiz-Sandoval, 81 F.3d

13

at 894; Stanley, 21 F.3d at 360.

14
V.

California State Law Claims

15
16
17

Although Petitioner’s claim is unclear, to the extent he is alleging a California state law
claim, federal habeas relief is available to state prisoners only to correct violations of the United

18

States Constitutions, federal laws, or treaties of the United States. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a). "[F]ederal

19

habeas corpus relief does not lie for errors of state law." Wilson v. Corcoran, 562 U.S. 1, 5 (2010);

20

Estelle v. McGuire, 502 U.S. 62, 67 (1991); Lewis v. Jeffers, 497 U.S. 764, 780 (1990). Re-

21

examining state-court determinations of state-law questions is not the business of federal courts.

22
Wilson, 562 U.S. at 5. In reviewing a federal habeas petition, a federal district court accepts a state
23
24

court's interpretation of that state's law. Langford v. Day, 110 F.3d 1380, 1389 (9th Cir. 1996).

25

Accordingly, the amended habeas petition must set forth only those claims alleging violations of

26

Petitioner's constitutional rights. An example of a state-law claim includes a claim for the violation

27

of the California penal code.

28
4

1

VI.

Exhaustion of State Remedies

2

It is not clear from the petition whether Petitioner has exhausted the claim he has alleged. A

3

petitioner who is in state custody and wishes to collaterally challenge his conviction by a petition for

4

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

5

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

6
7

correct the state's alleged constitutional deprivations. Coleman v. Thompson, 501 U.S. 722, 731
(1991); Rose v. Lundy, 455 U.S. 509, 518 (1982); Buffalo v. Sunn, 854 F.2d 1158, 1163 (9th Cir.

8
9

1988).
A petitioner can satisfy the exhaustion requirement by providing the highest state court with

10
11

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

12

Henry, 513 U.S. 364, 365 (1995); Picard v. Connor, 404 U.S. 270, 276 (1971); Johnson v. Zenon, 88

13

F.3d 828, 829 (9th Cir. 1996). A federal court will find that the highest state court was given a full

14

and fair opportunity to hear a claim if the petitioner has presented the highest state court with the

15
16
17

claim's factual and legal basis. Duncan, 513 U.S. at 365; Kenney v. Tamayo-Reyes, 504 U.S. 1, 8
(1992).

18

The petitioner must also have specifically informed the state court that he was raising a

19

federal constitutional claim. Duncan, 513 U.S. at 365-66; Lyons v. Crawford, 232 F.3d 666, 669 (9th

20

Cir. 2000), amended, 247 F.3d 904 (2001); Hiivala v. Wood, 195 F.3d 1098, 1106 (9th Cir. 1999);

21

Keating v. Hood, 133 F.3d 1240, 1241 (9th Cir. 1998). If any of grounds for collateral relief set forth

22
in a petition for habeas corpus are unexhausted, the Court must dismiss the petition. 28 U.S.C.
23
24
25

§ 2254(b)(1); Rose, 455 U.S. at 521-22.
VIII. Conclusion and Order

26

The Court hereby ORDERS:

27

1.

The petition for writ of habeas corpus shall be dismissed with leave to amend.

28

2.

The Clerk's Office shall send Petitioner a copy of this order and a form for a “Petition
5

under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 for Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person in State Custody.”

1
3.

2

Within thirty (30) days of service of this order, Petitioner may file an amended

3

petition. Petitioner shall name as respondent the warden of the institution in which

4

he is incarcerated. Petitioner shall fully complete the form for the amended petition,

5

including all claims and the facts supporting each claim.

6

4.

If Plaintiff fails to file an amended petition within thirty (30) days from the date

7
of service of this order, the Court will recommend the action be dismissed, with
8
prejudice, for failure to obey a court order.

9
10
11
12
13

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

December 4, 2017

/s/

Sheila K. Oberto

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
6

.