(HC)Singh v. Pfeiffer

Filing 23

FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Jeremy D. Peterson on 5/5/2022 RECOMMENDING that 22 Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus be Dismissed as unexhausted. Referred to Judge Troy L. Nunley. Objections due within 14 days after being served with these findings and recommendations. (Coll, A)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

8
9

RAGHVENDRA SINGH,

10

Petitioner,

11
12

v.

Case No. 2:21-cv-01731-TLN-JDP (HC)
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
THAT THE SECOND AMENDED PETITION
BE DISMISSED WITHOUT LEAVE TO
AMEND AS UNEXHAUSTED

C. PFEIFFER,
ECF No. 22

13

Respondent.

14
15

Petitioner, proceeding without counsel, seeks a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C.

16

§ 2241. He has been given two chances to amend his petition, ECF Nos. 8 & 21, and has now

17

filed his second amended petition, ECF No. 22. After reviewing the second amended petition, I

18

conclude that petitioner’s claims are unexhausted and should be dismissed without prejudice.

19

The amended petition is before me for preliminary review under Rule 4 of the Rules

20

Governing Section 2241 Cases. Under Rule 4, the judge assigned to the habeas proceeding must

21

examine the habeas petition and order a response to the petition unless it “plainly appears” that

22

the petitioner is not entitled to relief. 1 See Valdez v. Montgomery, 918 F.3d 687, 693 (9th Cir.

23

2019); Boyd v. Thompson, 147 F.3d 1124, 1127 (9th Cir. 1998).

24

Petitioner raises various claims related to a 2020 conviction in Sacramento County

25

Superior Court. ECF No. 22 at 1. He states that he raised these claims in a direct appeal to the

26

California Court of Appeal, id. at 2, but he makes no mention of presenting these claims to the

27
28

1

This rule may be applied to petitions brought under § 2241. See Rule 1(b) of the Rules
Governing § 2254 Cases.
1

1

California Supreme Court by way of a petition for review.2 Petitioner also states that he filed a

2

state habeas petition in Sacramento County Superior Court, id. at 2-3, but that he declined to file a

3

habeas petition with any higher state court because “there is no appeal for habeas corpus

4

proceedings.”3 Id. at 3. A federal habeas court may not consider the merits of a petitioner’s

5

claims unless they have first been presented to the highest state court. See Walden v. Shinn, 990

6

F.3d 1183, 1196 (9th Cir. 2021) (“Exhaustion requires that a petitioner fairly present his federal

7

claims to the highest state court available.”) (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Davis v.

8

Silva, 511 F.3d 1005, 1008 (9th Cir. 2008)). Here, petitioner failed to present his claims to the

9

California Supreme Court and, so I may not consider their merits. Rasberry v. Garcia, 448 F.3d

10

1150, 1154 (9th Cir. 2006) (“Once a district court determines that a habeas petition contains only

11

unexhausted claims, it need not inquire further as to the petitioner’s intentions. Instead, it may

12

simply dismiss the habeas petition for failure to exhaust.”). Petitioner may re-file his claims if

13

and when he has properly exhausted them in state court. Additionally, if he has, in fact,

14

exhausted his claims, he may explain as much in his objections to these recommendations.

15
16

Accordingly, it is RECOMMENDED that the amended petition, ECF No. 22, be
DISMISSED as unexhausted.

17

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the U.S. District Court Judge

18

presiding over this case under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Rule 304 of the Local Rules of

19

Practice for the United States District Court, Eastern District of California. Within fourteen days

20

of service of the findings and recommendations, petitioner may file written objections to the

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

2

Petitioner has left the form blank as to whether he presented his direct appeal to the
California Supreme Court. The form instructs that, “[i]f you sought further review by a higher
state court” the petitioner is to indicate as much. ECF No. 22 at 2. I note that, in a previous
petition, petitioner attached what purports to be a decision by the California Supreme Court on his
claims. ECF No. 18 at 31. That “decision” is a docket sheet. Id. That docket indicates that the
only issue to which the California Supreme Court ordered a response is “[d]o the conditions of
confinement in the Rio Consumnes Correctional Center, as set forth in claim 1, violate the Eighth
Amendment?” Id. The California Supreme Court ultimately denied this petition as moot, id., an
indication that the claims at issue in this case were not considered.
3
Petitioner is correct that the denial of his state habeas petition was non-appealable. He
could still, however, file an original petition with the California Supreme Court. Nino v. Galaza,
183 F.3d 1003, 1006, n.2 (9th Cir. 1999) (“In California, the supreme court, intermediate courts
of appeal, and superior courts all have original habeas corpus jurisdiction.”).
2

1

findings and recommendations with the court and serve a copy on all parties. That document

2

must be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” The

3

District Judge will then review the findings and recommendations under 28 U.S.C.

4

§ 636(b)(1)(C).

5
6

IT IS SO ORDERED.

7
Dated:
8
9

May 5, 2022
JEREMY D. PETERSON
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3