Owens v. People of the State of California et al
Filing
11
FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Gregory G. Hollows on 10/19/15 RECOMMENDING that the petition, ECF No. 1 , be DISMISSED without prejudice. Referred to Judge Kimberly J. Mueller; Objections to F&R due within 14 days.(Dillon, M)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
KENNETH O. OWENS,
Plaintiff,
12
13
14
No. 2:15-cv-01286-KJM-GGH
v.
FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF
CALIFORNIA, et al.,
15
Defendants.
16
17
Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with an application for a writ of habeas
18
corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. On July 20, 2015, the court ordered petitioner to show
19
cause why the petition should not be dismissed without prejudice for failure to exhaust his state
20
court remedies. ECF No. 7. On August 3, 2015, petitioner filed a response to the court’s order to
21
show cause. ECF No. 9. The court finds that petitioner has not shown that he has exhausted his
22
state court remedies and accordingly, will recommend that his petition be dismissed.
23
The exhaustion of state court remedies is a prerequisite to the granting of a petition for
24
writ of habeas corpus. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(1). If exhaustion is to be waived, it must be waived
25
explicitly by respondent’s counsel. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(3). A waiver of exhaustion, thus, may
26
not be implied or inferred. A petitioner satisfies the exhaustion requirement by providing the
27
highest state court with a full and fair opportunity to consider all claims before presenting them to
28
the federal court. Picard v. Connor, 404 U.S. 270, 276 (1971); Middleton v. Cupp, 768 F.2d
1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
1083, 1086 (9th Cir. 1985).
It is not enough that all the facts necessary to support the federal claim were before the
state courts, Picard, 404 U.S. at 277, or that a somewhat similar state-law claim was made. See
Duncan v. Henry, 513 U.S. 364, 366 (1995). The habeas petitioner must have “fairly presented”
to the state courts the “substance” of his federal habeas corpus claim. Picard, 404 U.S. at 275,
277–78; see also Rose v. Lundy, 455 U.S. 509, 520 (1982). Petitioner has the burden of proving
exhaustion of state court remedies and in California a petitioner must present his claims to the
California Supreme Court. Cartwright v. Cupp, 650 F.2d 1103, 1104 (9th Cir. 1981); Kim v.
Villalobos, 799 F.2d 1317, 1319 (9th Cir. 1986).
Petitioner concedes that his habeas claims are currently pending before the California
Court of Appeals. ECF No. 9 at 1 (“Petitioner Kenneth O. Owens is a state prisoner currently
proceeding pro se with a pending habeas corpus in the appellate court . . . .”), 3 (“[T]he matter is
currently pending in appellate court . . . .”). However, he argues that his petition should not be
dismissed because (1) his claims are based on newly discovered evidence and (2) his counsel at
the appellate level neglected to assert his claims. Id. at 2–3. While these arguments might help
explain a failure to comply with the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996
(AEDPA), 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d) one year statute of limitations, they are irrelevant to petitioner’s
failure to exhaust his state court remedies. Accordingly, the court finds that petitioner has not
exhausted his state court remedies and will recommend his petition be dismissed without
prejudice to re-filing once he has.
In accordance with the foregoing, THE COURT HEREBY RECOMMENDS that the
petition, ECF No. 1, be DISMISSED without prejudice.
These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge to
be assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen days
after being served with these findings and recommendations, petitioner may file written
objections with the court. Id.; see also Local Rule 304(b). Such a document should be captioned
“Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Failure to file objections
28
2
1
2
3
4
within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Turner v.
Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998); Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153, 1156–57 (9th Cir.
1991).
Dated: October 19, 2015
5
/s/ Gregory G. Hollows
6
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
7
8
9
10
11
12
/owen1286.dism
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
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?