Bone v. Kernan
Filing
15
FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS that Respondent's 12 Motion to Dismiss Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus be Granted for Failure to Exhaust, that Petition be Dismissed without Prejudice, and that the Court Decline to Issue a Certificate of Appealability signed by Magistrate Judge Jeremy D. Peterson on 6/25/2018. Referred to Judge Anthony W. Ishii. Objections to F&R due within Fourteen (14) Days. (Sant Agata, S)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
DONALD DOUGLAS BONE,
Case No. 1:18-cv-00665-AWI-JDP
16
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
THAT RESPONDENT’S MOTION TO
DISMISS PETITION FOR WRIT OF
HABEAS CORPUS BE GRANTED FOR
FAILURE TO EXHAUST, THAT PETITION
BE DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE,
AND THAT THE COURT DECLINE TO
ISSUE A CERTIFICATE OF
APPEALABILITY
17
(Doc. No. 12)
Petitioner,
12
v.
13
14
SCOTT KERNAN,
15
Respondent.
Pro se petitioner Donald Douglas Bone is a state prisoner proceeding in forma pauperis
18
19
with a petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Respondent Scott Kernan
20
moves to dismiss the petition. (Doc. No. 12.) The undersigned will recommend that the court
21
grant respondent’s motion to dismiss for petitioner’s failure to exhaust remedies in state court.
22
I.
BACKGROUND
23
This habeas proceeding concerns petitioner’s claim that the California Department of
24
Corrections and Rehabilitation (“CDCR”) violated his due process rights when it denied him
25
early release. Petitioner had been scheduled to be released on April 24, 2018, a date that took into
26
account a 90-day Education Merit Credit that CDCR had awarded him under Cal. Code Regs. tit.
27
15, § 3043.5. (Doc. No. 1, at 11.) On April 17, 2018, one week before his scheduled release,
28
petitioner received a notice that CDCR had rescinded the Education Merit Credit and that his new
1
1
release date would be July 22, 2018. (Doc. No. 12, at 23.) Petitioner filed an institutional
2
grievance, appealing CDCR’s decision to rescind his Education Merit Credit. (Id. at 13-22.) On
3
June 12, 2018, C. Flores, an Associate Warden, partially granted petitioner’s appeal,
4
acknowledging that CDCR had inappropriately rescinded petitioner’s Education Merit Credit.
5
(Id. at 22.) Although Associate Warden Flores restored petitioner’s Education Merit Credit, he
6
denied petitioner’s request to have his release date restored, relying on a regulation that states
7
that—except pursuant to a court order—an inmate’s credit cannot be restored if that credit
8
advances the inmate’s release to a date less than 60 calendar days from the date of restoration.
9
(See id. at 13-14); Cal. Code Regs. tit. 15, § 3043(c). Petitioner filed his habeas petition in this
10
case on May 10, 2018, while the decision on his institutional grievance was pending.
11
II.
ANALYSIS
Generally, a federal court may not grant a state prisoner’s petition for a writ of habeas
12
13
corpus unless the prisoner has exhausted his remedies in state court. See 28 U.S.C.
14
§ 2254(b)(1)(A); Brown v. Ahern, 676 F.3d 899, 900 (9th Cir. 2012) (applying exhaustion
15
requirement for Section 2241 petition). To satisfy the exhaustion requirement, a petitioner must
16
“fairly present” his habeas claims “in each appropriate state court . . . including a state supreme
17
court with powers of discretionary review.” Murray v. Schriro, 882 F.3d 778, 807 (9th Cir. 2018)
18
(quoting Baldwin v. Reese, 541 U.S. 27, 30 (2004)). The exhaustion requirement, rooted in the
19
principles of comity, ensures that the state courts have “the first opportunity . . . to correct the
20
errors made in the internal administration of their prisons.” Simpson v. Thomas, 528 F.3d 685,
21
692 (9th Cir. 2008) (quoting Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 491-92 (1973)); accord Beames
22
v. Chappell, No. 1:10-cv-01429, 2015 WL 403938, at *3 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 28, 2015) (collecting
23
cases).
24
Here, petitioner has not exhausted his state remedies because he never presented his
25
claims to California state courts. Before dismissing his petition, however, the court must consider
26
whether any exception to the exhaustion requirement applies. A state prisoner need not exhaust
27
remedies in state court if “(i) there is an absence of available State corrective process; or (ii)
28
2
1
circumstances exist that render such process ineffective to protect the rights of the applicant.” 28
2
U.S.C. § 2254 (b)(1)(B). As for the first condition, petitioner has a state corrective process
3
available to him: California courts have granted relief to inmates denied credit because of prison
4
administrators’ errors. See Basque v. Schwartz, No. 2:07-cv-258, 2009 WL 187920, at *2 (E.D.
5
Cal. Jan. 20, 2009), findings and recommendation adopted, 2009 WL 1110552 (E.D. Cal. Apr.
6
24, 2009) (collecting cases).
7
Similarly, petitioner has not demonstrated that circumstances exist that render the state
8
process “ineffective to protect the rights of the applicant.” The undersigned is mindful that
9
petitioner’s habeas claims require an expeditious ruling and that pursuing remedies in state court
10
will take time. Even so, only “extreme” or “unusual” delays in state court proceedings can justify
11
an immediate federal review, and any such delay must be “attributable to the state rather than to
12
the individual.” Edelbacher v. Calderon, 160 F.3d 582, 586 (9th Cir. 1998). There has been no
13
such delay here, since petitioner has yet to present his claims to California state courts.
For these reasons, the undersigned will recommend that the court grant respondent’s
14
15
motion to dismiss. The undersigned will recommend that the dismissal be without prejudice.
16
III.
17
CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY
A petitioner seeking a writ of habeas corpus has no absolute right to appeal a district
18
court’s denial of a petition; he may appeal only in limited circumstances. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253;
19
Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 335-36 (2003). Rule 11 Governing Section 2254 Cases
20
requires a district court to issue or deny a certificate of appealability when entering a final order
21
adverse to a petitioner. See also Ninth Circuit Rule 22-1(a); United States v. Asrar, 116 F.3d
22
1268, 1270 (9th Cir. 1997). A certificate of appealability will not issue unless a petitioner makes
23
“a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). This
24
standard requires the petitioner to show that “jurists of reason could disagree with the district
25
court’s resolution of his constitutional claims or that jurists could conclude the issues presented
26
are adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further.” Miller-El, 537 U.S. at 327; accord
27
Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000).
28
3
Here, reasonable jurists would not disagree either that petitioner’s state-court remedies are
1
2
unexhausted or that a California state court should have the first opportunity to address
3
petitioner’s claims. Thus, the undersigned will recommend that the court decline to issue a
4
certificate of appealability.
5
IV.
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
6
The undersigned recommends that the court:
7
1. grant respondent’s motion to dismiss (Doc. No. 12);
8
2. dismiss the petition without prejudice; and
9
3. decline to issue a certificate of appealability.
10
The undersigned submits the findings and recommendations to the U.S. District Court
11
Judge presiding over this case under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Rule 304 of the Local Rules of
12
Practice for the United States District Court, Eastern District of California. Within FOURTEEN
13
(14) days of the service of the findings and recommendations, petitioner may file written
14
objections to the findings and recommendations with the court and serve a copy on all parties.
15
That document must be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and
16
Recommendations.” The District Judge will then review the findings and recommendations
17
under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). Petitioner’s failure to file objections within the specified time
18
may result in the waiver of rights on appeal. See Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 839 (9th
19
Cir. 2014).
20
21
22
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:
June 25, 2018
/s/
23
Jeremy D. Peterson
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
24
25
26
27
28
4
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?