Tarango v. Knipp et al

Filing 3

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE. Response due by 2/13/2014. Signed by Judge Jon S. Tigar on January 14, 2014. (wsn, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/14/2014)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

ERNESTO B. TARANGO,

Case No. 13-cv-01544-JST

Plaintiff,
8
v.

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

9
10

WILLIAM KNIPP, et al.,

Re: ECF No. 1

Defendants.

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
This is a federal habeas corpus action filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 by Ernesto Tarango, a

13
14

state prisoner who is represented by an attorney. Tarango’s petition is now before the Court for

15

review under 28 U.S.C. § 2243. The filing fee has been paid.

16

I.

BACKGROUND
According to the petition, in 2009, a Santa Clara County Superior Court jury convicted

17
18

Tarango of two counts of committing a lewd or lascivious act on a child; one count of aggravated

19

sexual assault on a child; and three counts of committing a lewd or lascivious act on a child by

20

force, violence, or duress. Tarango was sentenced to 15 years to life in connection with the count

21

of aggravated sexual assault on a child and 26 years total in connection with the remaining counts.

22

Tarango admits in his petition that he has not exhausted his state remedies.

23

II.

24

DISCUSSION
A district court may entertain a petition for writ of habeas corpus “in behalf of a person in

25

custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court only on the ground that he is in custody in

26

violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a). A

27

district court considering an application for a writ of habeas corpus shall “award the writ or issue

28

an order directing the respondent to show cause why the writ should not be granted, unless it

1

appears from the application that the applicant or person detained is not entitled thereto.” 28

2

U.S.C. § 2243. Summary dismissal is appropriate only where the allegations in the petition are

3

vague or conclusory, palpably incredible, or patently frivolous or false. See Hendricks v.

4

Vasquez, 908 F.2d 490, 491 (9th Cir. 1990).

5

Here, petitioner’s grounds for relief are that defense counsel rendered ineffective assistance

6

by failing to object when some of the counts were tried in Santa Clara County; by failing to make

7

proper objections to the prosecution’s medical experts; by failing to call any medical experts to

8

rebut the prosecution’s experts; and by failing to object to petitioner wearing a surgical mask

9

during trial. When liberally construed, these claims appear to be cognizable on federal habeas

10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12

review. As such, summary dismissal of the petition is not appropriate.
The petition is subject to dismissal on another ground, however, namely Tarango’s failure
to exhaust his state remedies.

13

A prisoner in state custody who wishes to challenge in federal habeas proceedings either

14

the fact or length of his confinement is required to first exhaust his state judicial remedies, either

15

on direct appeal or through collateral proceedings, by presenting the highest state court available

16

with a fair opportunity to rule on the merits of each claim he seeks to raise in federal court. See 28

17

U.S.C. § 2254(b)-(c). If a petitioner fails to exhaust all available state remedies with respect to the

18

claims asserted in his federal habeas petition, then the district court must either dismiss the

19

petition or stay the petition to permit the petitioner to exhaust his state remedies. Rhines v.

20

Weber, 544 U.S. 269, 277-78 (2005). A district court may stay a petition, however, only when the

21

petitioner establishes good cause for failing to exhaust his claims in state court, shows that his

22

claims are potentially meritorious, and his federal habeas petition is asserts a combination of

23

exhausted and unexhausted claims. Raspberry v. Garcia, 448 F.3d 1150, 1154 (9th Cir. 2006).

24

Petitions that assert exhausted and unexhausted claims are referred to as “mixed” petitions.

25

Here, Tarango admits that he has not exhausted his state remedies, which renders his

26

petition subject to dismissal for lack of exhaustion. It is unclear from the petition which, if any, of

27

the six claims he asserts in the federal habeas petition were exhausted in state court. Without this

28

information, the Court cannot determine whether the petition merits consideration of a stay as a
2

1

mixed petition. Additionally, while the Court finds that the claims presented are potentially

2

meritorious, petitioner has failed to make a showing of good cause for his failure to exhaust the

3

claims prior to filing the instant petition. Accordingly, Tarango shall show cause why this action

4

should be stayed pending the exhaustion of his state remedies. In his response to this order,

5

Tarango shall identify the claims that remained unexhausted at the time he filed his federal habeas

6

petition and shall make a showing of good cause for his failure to exhaust his claims prior to filing

7

the federal habeas petition.

8

III.

9

CONCLUSION
Tarango shall show cause in writing within 30 days of the date this order is filed why this

action should be stayed pending the exhaustion of his state remedies, as described above. A

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

failure to file a timely response will result in the dismissal without prejudice of the instant petition

12

for failure to exhaust state remedies.

13
14
15
16

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: January 14, 2014
______________________________________
JON S. TIGAR
United States District Judge

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3