Alston v. People of Sacramento
Filing
10
FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Craig M. Kellison on 10/29/2014 RECOMMENDING that petitioner's 1 , 7 petition be summarily dismissed, without prejudice, for failure to exhaust state court remedies. Referred to Judge John A. Mendez; 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
11
C.D. ALSTON,
12
Petitioner,
13
14
No. 2:13-cv-0078-JAM-CMK-P
vs.
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION
PEOPLE OF SACRAMENTO,
15
Respondent.
16
/
17
Petitioner, proceeding pro se, brings this petition for a writ of habeas corpus
18
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Pending before the court is petitioner’s amended petition for a
19
writ of habeas corpus (Doc. 7).
20
On May 8, 2014, the undersigned issued an order to show cause, requiring
21
petitioner to show cause in writing why her petition should not be summarily dismissed, without
22
prejudice, for failure to exhaust state court remedies. Petitioner has filed a response to the order
23
(Doc. 6), as well as an amended petition (Doc. 7).
24
///
25
///
26
///
1
1
In the court’s prior order, the undersigned discussed the exhaustion of petitioner’s
2
state court remedies as follows:
3
Rule 4 of the Federal Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases
provides for summary dismissal of a habeas petition “[i]f it plainly
appears from the face of the petition and any exhibits annexed to it
that the petitioner is not entitled to relief in the district court.” In
the instant case, it is plain that petitioner is not entitled to federal
habeas relief. In particular, the exhaustion of available state
remedies is required before claims can be presented to the federal
court in a habeas corpus case. See Rose v. Lundy, 455 U.S. 509
(1982); see also Kelly v. Small, 315 F.3d 1063, 1066 (9th Cir.
2003); Hunt v. Pliler, 336 F.3d 839 (9th Cir. 2003). A petitioner
can satisfy the exhaustion requirement by providing the highest
state court with a full and fair opportunity to consider all claims
before presenting them to the federal court. See Picard v. Connor,
404 U.S. 270, 276 (1971), Middleton v. Cupp, 768 F.2d 1083,
1086 (9th Cir. 1986).
Upon review of the instant petition, the court
concludes that petitioner has not exhausted state court remedies as
to any of his claims. Petitioner specifically states in her petition
that she has only appealed her conviction to the California Court of
Appeals, which is still pending, and filed a motion with the
Superior Court of Sacramento County regarding insufficient
evidence and misconduct. None of her claims have been raised to
the California Supreme Court. She has therefore not exhausted her
state remedies prior to filing this action.
(Order, Doc. 5).
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
In response to the order to show cause, petitioner acknowledges that she has not
17
fully exhausted her state court remedies. She again indicates she has an appeal pending in the
18
California Court of Appeal, but no claim has been raised to the California Supreme Court. She is
19
essentially requesting this court waive the exhaustion requirement and allow her to proceed with
20
her petition as she has not been successful in her attempts to address her issues with different
21
state and federal agencies, including complaints filed with Internal Affairs, the City of
22
Sacramento, the District Attorney, the mayor, congress, senators as well as this court. She argues
23
if she is required to exhaust her state court remedies, she will be required to complete her short
24
sentence, which would be unjust.
25
///
26
///
2
1
However, as set forth above, pursuant to the ruling by the United States Supreme
2
Court, under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b), the exhaustion of available state remedies is required before
3
claims can be granted by the federal court in a habeas corpus case. See Rose v. Lundy, 455 U.S.
4
509 (1982). “A petitioner may satisfy the exhaustion requirement in two ways: (1) by providing
5
the highest state court with an opportunity to rule on the merits of the claim . . .; or (2) by
6
showing that at the time the petitioner filed the habeas petition in federal court no state remedies
7
are available to the petitioner and the petitioner has not deliberately by-passed the state
8
remedies.” Batchelor v. Cupp , 693 F.2d 859, 862 (9th Cir. 1982) (citations omitted). The
9
exhaustion doctrine is based on a policy of federal and state comity, designed to give state courts
10
the initial opportunity to correct alleged constitutional deprivations. See Picard v. Connor, 404
11
U.S. 270, 275 (1971); see also Rose, 455 U.S. at 518.
12
Here, petitioner has not exhausted her claims. She has neither provided the
13
California Supreme Court the opportunity to rule on the merits of her claims, nor has she shown
14
no state remedies are available. Petitioner’s attempts to have her claims heard by agencies other
15
than the California Supreme Court are insufficient to meet the exhaustion requirements.
16
Petitioner acknowledges her lack of exhaustion in her response to the undersigned’s order to
17
show cause. Her amended petition does not resolve the exhaustion issue, and is not addressed in
18
any significant way.
19
Upon review of the original petition, the petitioner’s response to the order to show
20
cause, and her amended petition, the undersigned concludes that petitioner has not exhausted her
21
state court remedies as to any of her claims. Based on the foregoing, the undersigned
22
recommends that petitioner’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus (Docs. 1, 7) be summarily
23
dismissed, without prejudice, for failure to exhaust state court remedies.
24
These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District
25
Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within 14 days
26
after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written
3
1
objections with the court. Responses to objections shall be filed within 14 days after service of
2
objections. Failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal.
3
See Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).
4
5
6
7
DATED: October 29, 2014
______________________________________
CRAIG M. KELLISON
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
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?