Chestang v. Warden
Filing
14
ORDER and FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Carolyn K. Delaney on 07/13/12 ORDERING the clerk of the court assign a District Judge to this case. U.S. District Judge John A. Mendez randomly assigned to this case. Also, RECOMMEN DING that Respondent's 05/29/12 motion to dismiss be denied; and respondent be directed to file his answer within 21 days of the adoption of the foregoing findings and recommendations. MOTION to DISMISS 9 referred to Judge John A. Mendez. Objections due within 21 days. (Plummer, M)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
DANIEL K. CHESTANG,
11
Petitioner,
12
No. CIV S-12-0749 CKD P
vs.
13
WARDEN, CSP SOLANO,
14
Respondent.
15
ORDER AND
/
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
16
Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed a petition for a writ of
17
habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. He challenges a prison disciplinary proceeding
18
finding that he unlawfully possessed controlled substances for sale or distribution and the loss of
19
160 days sentence credit which resulted from that finding. Respondent has filed a motion asking
20
that this matter be dismissed for failure to exhaust state court remedies.
21
The exhaustion of state court remedies is a prerequisite to the granting of a
22
petition for writ of habeas corpus. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(1). A petitioner satisfies the exhaustion
23
requirement by providing the highest state court with a full and fair opportunity to consider all
24
claims before presenting them to the federal court. Picard v. Connor, 404 U.S. 270, 276 (1971).
25
It is petitioner’s burden to demonstrate that he has exhausted state court remedies with respect to
26
/////
1
1
his claims. See Cartwright v. Cupp, 650 F.2d 1103, 1104 (9th Cir. 1981) (statement by petitioner
2
that state court remedies are exhausted insufficient to preclude dismissal for failure to exhaust).
3
Petitioner presented the claim presented in this action to the California Court of
4
Appeal via a petition for writ of habeas corpus. Pet at. 4.1 The petition was denied on June 30,
5
2011 for failure to exhaust administrative remedies before proceeding to court. Id. at 47.
6
Petitioner then presented his claim to the California Supreme Court also through a petition for
7
writ of habeas corpus. Id. at 4. On February 15, 2012, the petition was denied without further
8
comment. Id. at 48. In Ylst v. Nunnemaker, 501 U.S. 797, 803 (1991) the Supreme Court found
9
that when the California Supreme Court denies a state habeas petition without comment, there is
10
a presumption that the petition was denied for the same reasons as the Court of Appeal petition if
11
reasons were given in support of that denial. Respondent argues that by virtue of the Ylst
12
presumption, the court must find that the California Supreme Court denied petitioner’s state
13
habeas petition for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. If the court made such a finding
14
then the court must also find that state court remedies are not exhausted based on the premise
15
that state court remedies are still available to plaintiff if he exhausts administrative remedies.
16
In this case, however, the court finds that petitioner has overcome the Ylst
17
presumption. In order to exhaust administrative remedies with respect to the claims presented in
18
this action, petitioner was required to submit his claims to the Office of the Director of the
19
California Department of Corrections of Rehabilitation and obtain a decision regarding his
20
claims from the Director. Cal. Code Regs. tit. 15, § 3084.5. The evidence before the court
21
indicates that petitioner submitted his claims to the Director, the Director issued a decision with
22
respect to the claims, and petitioner attached a copy of that decision to his California Supreme
23
Court habeas petition. Dckt. No. 12 at 65. In light of this evidence, which respondent does not
24
address or acknowledge, there should not be a presumption that the California Supreme Court
25
26
1
Page numbers are those assigned by the court’s electronic docketing system.
2
1
denied petitioner’s state habeas petition for failure to exhaust administrative remedies or for
2
failing to demonstrate that he did.
3
Because there is nothing before the court suggesting petitioner did not exhaust
4
state court remedies with respect to the claims presented in this action, the court will recommend
5
that respondent’s motion to dismiss be denied and respondent be directed to file his answer.
6
7
In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Clerk of the
Court assign a District Court Judge to this case.
8
IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that:
9
1. Respondent’s May 29, 2012 motion to dismiss be denied; and
10
11
2. Respondent be directed to file his answer within twenty-one days of adoption
of the foregoing findings and recommendations.
12
These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District
13
Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within twenty-
14
one days after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written
15
objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned
16
“Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Any reply to the objections
17
shall be served and filed within fourteen days after service of the objections. The parties are
18
advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the
19
District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).
20
Dated: July 13, 2012
21
_____________________________________
CAROLYN K. DELANEY
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
22
23
24
25
1
ches0749.157
26
3
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?