Houze, II v. State of California

Filing 21

FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Gregory G. Hollows on 1/26/2012 RECOMMENDING that pending 1 habeas petition be dismissed without prejudice. Referred to Judge Garland E. Burrell, Jr.; Objections due within 14 days. (Yin, K)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

LAMONT A. HOUZE, II,

11

Petitioner,

No. CIV S-11-1549 GEB GGH P

vs.
12
13

STATE OF CALIFORNIA,

14

Respondent.

15
16

FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS
/

I. Introduction

17

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

18

habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Petitioner was found guilty by a jury of felony

19

stalking and was sentenced to two years in prison, and has since been released.1

20

Petitioner raises four claims in the instant petition: 1) the stalking conviction

21

should have been a misdemeanor; 2) inconsistent witness testimony; 3) petitioner did not commit

22

a malicious act to support a stalking finding; and 4) petitioner never made a threat to support a

23

stalking finding.

24

\\\\\

25
26

1

Petitioner represented himself at trial.
1

1

II. Background

2

Petitioner filed this instant action on June 9, 2011, and the case was transferred to

3

the undersigned on June 20, 2011. Four days later on June 24, 2011, the undersigned ordered

4

respondent to file a response to the petition. An answer was timely filed and petitioner filed his

5

second reply on September 1, 2011, thus the case was fully briefed. Two months later petitioner

6

filed a notice to the court requesting that the case be reviewed in a reasonable time. In December

7

2011, petitioner filed a writ of mandamus with the Ninth Circuit stating his unhappiness that this

8

court had not yet ruled on his petition. The Ninth Circuit issued an order on January 11, 2012,

9

that petitioner’s writ of mandamus be denied without prejudice to the filing of a new petition if

10

this district court had not ruled on the pending habeas corpus within 90 days. Doc. 20.

11

However, petitioner has presented both exhausted and unexhausted claims. A

12

petitioner satisfies the exhaustion requirement by providing the highest state court with a full and

13

fair opportunity to consider all claims before presenting them to the federal court. Picard v.

14

Connor, 404 U.S. 270, 276, 92 S.Ct. 509 (1971); Middleton v. Cupp, 768 F.2d 1083, 1086 (9th

15

Cir. 1985).

16

Claims one and three were not raised on direct appeal with the California Court of

17

Appeal. Lodged Document (Lod. Doc.) 1. Petitioner raised these claims for the first time on his

18

pro se direct appeal to the California Supreme Court which exercised its discretion and did not

19

review the petition. Lod. Docs. 7, 8. California Rules of Court, Rule 8.500(b) (review of

20

appellate decision discretionary). Importantly, the California Supreme Court will ordinarily not

21

consider on direct review claims that were not timely presented to the California Court of

22

Appeal. California Rules of Court, Rule 8.500(c)(1). As a result, these claims were not

23

reviewed on the merits on direct review by the California Supreme Court.

24

Petitioner also raised these claims on habeas review to the Sacramento County

25

Superior Court and the California Court of Appeal. Lod. Docs. 9, 11. However, petitioner never

26

raised the claims on habeas review with the California Supreme Court, as petitioner never filed a
2

1

habeas petition in the California Supreme Court. As the California Supreme Court has never had

2

a fair opportunity to review the merits of this claim, the claim is unexhausted. See Castille v.

3

Peoples, 489 U.S. 346, 351, 109 S.Ct. 1056, 1060 (1989) (claims are not fairly presented if they

4

are raised in a procedural context in which the merits will not be considered absent special

5

circumstances); Casey v. Moore, 386 F.3d 896, 916-18 (9th Cir. 2004) (holding that a state

6

prisoner had not exhausted his claims by presenting them for the first and only time in a petition

7

for discretionary review with the state’s highest court, i.e., in a context in which the merits would

8

not be reviewed).2

9

Claim two was only raised on habeas review to the Sacramento County Superior

10

Court and the California Court of Appeal. Lod. Docs. 9, 11. However, petitioner never raised

11

this claim in the California Supreme Court. Claim four was properly exhausted.

12

The United States Supreme Court has held that a federal district court may not

13

entertain a petition for habeas corpus unless the petitioner has exhausted state remedies with

14

respect to each of the claims raised. Rose v. Lundy, 455 U.S. 509, 102 S.Ct. 1198 (1982).

15

Where some claims are exhausted and others are not (i.e., a “mixed” petition), the court must

16

dismiss the petition without prejudice. Rose, 455 U.S. at 510, 521–22.

17

Generally, a court may stay a petition and hold it in abeyance pursuant to either

18

Kelly v. Small, 315 F.3d 1063 (9th Cir. 2003), or Rhines v. Weber, 544 U.S. 269, 125 S.Ct.

19

1528, 161 L.Ed.2d 440 (1995). See King v. Ryan, 564 F.3d 1133, 1135 (9th Cir. 2009).

20

However, petitioner has not requested a stay in his opposition, nor has he demonstrated good

21

cause for a Rhines stay. Therefore, this court rules on the pending habeas petition that it should

22
23
24
25
26

2

Casey continued with analyzing the petition under a procedural default rubric in that the
state involved (Washington) had a definitive statute of limitations for filing collateral review.
California has no such definitive filing time for the filing of habeas petitions, and if procedural
default is to be entertained for the late filing of habeas petition, it must first be established by the
holdings of the California state courts, i.e., the California state courts are not bound to find
procedural default on a timeliness basis as exceptions to filing within a “reasonable time” need to
be analyzed by the state courts.
3

1

be dismissed without prejudice.

2
3

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that the pending habeas petition
should be dismissed without prejudice.

4

If petitioner files objections, he shall also address if a certificate of appealability

5

should issue and, if so, as to which issues. A certificate of appealability may issue under 28

6

U.S.C. § 2253 “only if the applicant has made a substantial showing of the denial of a

7

constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). The certificate of appealability must “indicate

8

which specific issue or issues satisfy” the requirement. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(3).

9

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District

10

Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen

11

days after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written

12

objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned

13

“Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Any reply to the objections

14

shall be served and filed within seven days after service of the objections. The parties are

15

advised that failure to file objections within the specified time waives the right to appeal the

16

District Court's order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

17

Dated: January 26, 2012

18

/s/ Gregory G. Hollows
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

19
20

ggh: ab
houz1549.ord

21
22
23
24
25
26
4