Hoover v. Martel
Filing
4
ORDER of Dismissal. Signed by Judge Edward M. Chen on 12/13/2011. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service). (emcsec, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/13/2011)
1
2
3
4
5
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
6
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
7
8
WILLIAM DON HOOVER,
9
Petitioner,
v.
ORDER OF DISMISSAL
11
For the Northern District of California
United States District Court
10
No. C-11-4734 EMC (pr)
MICHAEL MARTEL, Warden,
12
Respondent.
___________________________________/
13
14
15
16
INTRODUCTION
William Don Hoover, an inmate at San Quentin State Prison, filed this pro se action for a
17
writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. His petition is now before the Court for review
18
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2243 and Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. The petition
19
will be summarily dismissed without prejudice because state court remedies have not been
20
exhausted on nay of his claims.
21
BACKGROUND
22
The petition and attachments thereto provide the following information: Hoover pled no
23
contest and was convicted in Napa County Superior Court of possession of methamphetamine for
24
sale and was found to have suffered four prior prison terms. On September 22, 2010, Hoover was
25
sentenced to a total of eight years in prison.
26
Hoover appealed. The judgment of conviction was affirmed by the California Court of
27
Appeal on May 18, 2011. Hoover attempted to seek review in the California Supreme Court by
28
filing a notice of appeal and request for extension of the deadline to file a petition for review. The
1
California Supreme Court construed the filing to be a petition for review and denied it on July 27,
2
2011.
3
Hoover then filed this action. In his federal petition, Hoover alleges three claims: (1) he
4
received ineffective assistance of trial counsel, (2) he was denied his Sixth Amendment right to hire
5
counsel of his choosing, and (3) the California Supreme Court denied him due process by refusing to
6
allow him to submit an opening brief before denying his petition.
7
8
9
DISCUSSION
Prisoners in state custody who wish to challenge collaterally in federal habeas proceedings
either the fact or length of their confinement are first required to exhaust state judicial remedies,
either on direct appeal or through collateral proceedings, by presenting the highest state court
11
For the Northern District of California
United States District Court
10
available with a fair opportunity to rule on the merits of each and every claim they seek to raise in
12
federal court. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b), (c); Rose v. Lundy, 455 U.S. 509, 515-16 (1982). A fully
13
unexhausted petition must be dismissed. See generally Rose, 455 U.S. at 510. A district court does
14
not have discretion to stay a petition containing only unexhausted claims. See Rasberry v. Garcia,
15
448 F.3d 1150, 1154 (9th Cir. 2006).
16
Hoover has not exhausted state court remedies as to any of his claims because none of his
17
claims were presented to the California Supreme Court to give that court a fair opportunity to rule on
18
the merits. The California Court of Appeal had considered his case after appellate counsel had filed
19
a Wende brief1 – a brief that, by its very nature, presented no legal claims – and Hoover had not filed
20
any supplemental brief to raise any legal claim. Petition, Ex. A at Ex. A1, p. 2. The California
21
Court of Appeal found “no meritorious issues to be argued, or that require further briefing on
22
appeal.” Petition, Ex. A at Ex. A1. After the California Court of Appeal affirmed, Hoover
23
1
24
25
26
27
28
Under California’s Wende brief procedure, see People v. Wende, 25 Cal.3d 436 (1979),
counsel, upon concluding that an appeal would be frivolous, (1) files a brief with the appellate court
that summarizes the procedural and factual history of the case, (2) attests that he has reviewed the
record, explained his evaluation of the case to his client, provided the client with a copy of the brief,
and informed the client of his right to file a pro se supplemental brief, and (3) requests that the
appellate court independently examine the record for arguable issues. The state appellate court,
upon receiving a Wende brief, conducts a review of the entire record and affirms if it finds the
appeal to be frivolous. If, however, it finds an arguable (i.e., nonfrivolous) issue, it orders briefing
on that issue. See Smith v. Robbins, 528 U.S. 259, 266 (2000).
2
1
attempted to seek relief in the California Supreme Court.2 The California Supreme Court denied
2
review. The activities in the California Supreme Court did not exhaust any issue. “As a policy
3
matter, on petition for review the Supreme Court normally will not consider an issue that the
4
petitioner failed to timely raise in the Court of Appeal.” Cal. Rule of Court 8.500(c)(1). As the
5
California Court of Appeal had been presented with no legal claims from Hoover’s counsel or
6
Hoover, and had found no claims worthy of consideration on its own, the California Supreme Court
7
had no legal claim before it. Hoover identified some legal claims in his notice of appeal to the
8
California Supreme Court, but those claims were beyond the scope of what the California Supreme
9
Court would have considered on review because none of those claims had been raised in the
11
For the Northern District of California
United States District Court
10
California Court of Appeal.
State court remedies have not been exhausted for any of the three claims in the federal
12
petition. The petition therefore must be dismissed and may not be stayed while Hoover exhausts
13
state court remedies. See Rasberry, 448 F.3d at 1154. Hoover is urged to act swiftly to exhaust his
14
state court remedies and immediately file a new federal habeas petition after he receives a decision
15
from the California Supreme Court to avoid running afoul of the one-year statute of limitations on
16
the filing of federal habeas petitions, 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d).
17
CONCLUSION
18
This action is dismissed because state court remedies have not been exhausted for any of the
19
claims in the petition. This dismissal is without prejudice to Hoover filing a new action after he
20
exhausts state court remedies. When Hoover files that new petition after exhausting, he should not
21
include the case number for this case on that petition because this action is now being closed.
22
Instead, Hoover should leave the case number blank, and a new case number will be assigned by the
23
Court when the new petition is filed.
24
25
26
27
28
2
Hoover never filed a petition for review that discussed the merits because his notice of
appeal was construed by the California Supreme Court to be a petition for review and then denied by
that court. In the notice of appeal, Hoover had stated that he challenged “the validity of the plea”
made “in a coercive and erroneous process based on illegal search, and based on erroneous advice
by the public defender.” Petition, Ex. A at Ex. A1.
3
1
Hoover’s application to proceed in forma pauperis is DENIED. (Docket # 2.) Although
2
notified by the Court of the deficiency, Hoover failed to file the certificate of funds and copy of his
3
inmate trust account statement needed to complete the application.
4
The Clerk shall close the file.
5
6
IT IS SO ORDERED.
7
8
Dated: December 13, 2011
9
_________________________
EDWARD M. CHEN
United States District Judge
11
For the Northern District of California
United States District Court
10
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
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?