Griffin v. Lizaraga

Filing 8

ORDER DISMISSING PETITION WITH LEAVE TO AMEND - Amended Complaint due by 2/19/2019. Signed by Judge William H. Orrick on 1/7/2019. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service) (jmdS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/7/2019)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

WILLIE RUSSEL GRIFFIN,

Case No. 18-cv-06733-WHO (PR)

Petitioner,

12

ORDER DISMISSING PETITION
WITH LEAVE TO AMEND

13

v.

14

JOE LIZARAGA,

15

Respondent.

16

INTRODUCTION

17
18

Petitioner Willie Russel Griffin seeks federal habeas relief from his state

19

convictions. The petition does not state any claim for relief for the reasons discussed

20

below. Accordingly, the petition is DISMISSED with leave to file an amended petition on

21

or before February 18, 2019.
BACKGROUND

22
23
24
25
26
27
28

In 2011, Griffin pleaded guilty in state court to voluntary manslaughter. A sentence
of 37 years was imposed.
Griffin filed no appeals. In 2018 he sought, but was denied, collateral relief in the
state courts. This federal habeas petition followed.

DISCUSSION

1

This Court may entertain a petition for writ of habeas corpus “in behalf of a person

2
3

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

4

custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C.

5

§ 2254(a). A district court considering an application for a writ of habeas corpus shall

6

“award the writ or issue an order directing the respondent to show cause why the writ

7

should not be granted, unless it appears from the application that the applicant or person

8

detained is not entitled thereto.” 28 U.S.C. § 2243. Summary dismissal is appropriate

9

only where the allegations in the petition are vague or conclusory, palpably incredible, or

10

patently frivolous or false. See Hendricks v. Vasquez, 908 F.2d 490, 491 (9th Cir. 1990).

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

As grounds for federal habeas relief, Griffin claims that his sentence is illegal under

12

state laws that forbid multiple punishments for the same crime and the “dual use of facts.”

13

(Pet., Dkt. No. 1 at 19 and 30.) He fails to state a claim for two reasons. First, violations

14

of state law are not remediable on federal habeas review, even if state law was erroneously

15

interpreted or applied. Swarthout v. Cooke, 562 U.S. 216, 218-20 (2011). Accordingly,

16

because Griffin alleges violations of state law, he fails to articulate a claim for federal

17

habeas relief.
Second, after a defendant has entered a plea of guilty, the only challenges left open

18
19

on federal habeas corpus review concern the (i) voluntary and intelligent character of the

20

plea and (ii) adequacy of the advice of counsel. Womack v. Del Papa, 497 F.3d 998, 1002

21

(9th Cir. 2007) (quoting Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52, 56-57 (1985)).1 Griffin pleaded

22

guilty. His habeas claim does not arise from one of the two circumstances listed above.

23

As a result, his petition will be dismissed with leave to file an amended petition.
Because Griffin has not exhausted his claims in state court, he may wish to file a

24
25
26
27
28

There are exceptions to this general bar. For example, a defendant who pleads guilty still
may raise in habeas corpus proceedings the very power of the state to bring him into court
to answer the charge brought against him, see Haring v. Prosise, 462 U.S. 306, 320 (1983)
(citing Blackledge v. Perry, 417 U.S. 21, 30 (1974)), and may raise a double jeopardy
claim, see id. (citing Menna v. New York, 423 U.S. 61 (1975)).
1

2

1

motion to stay habeas proceedings while he exhausts his claims. Prisoners in state custody

2

who wish to challenge collaterally either the fact or length of their confinement in federal

3

habeas proceedings are first required to exhaust state judicial remedies, either on direct

4

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

5

with a fair opportunity to rule on the merits of each and every claim they seek to raise in

6

federal court. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b), (c); Rose v. Lundy, 455 U.S. 509, 515-16 (1982).

7

If the claims are unexhausted, respondent will likely file a motion to dismiss on grounds of

8

nonexhaustion.

9

Griffin must also be aware of the following. If he exhausts his claims and if the
Court allows them to proceed here, respondent will likely file a motion to dismiss the

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

petition as untimely. He was convicted in 2011 but did not file this habeas action until

12

2018. Federal habeas petitions must be filed within one year of the latest of the date on

13

which: (A) the judgment became final after the conclusion of direct review or the time

14

passed for seeking direct review; (B) an impediment to filing an application created by

15

unconstitutional state action was removed, if such action prevented petitioner from filing;

16

(C) the constitutional right asserted was recognized by the Supreme Court, if the right was

17

newly recognized by the Supreme Court and made retroactive to cases on collateral

18

review; or (D) the factual predicate of the claim could have been discovered through the

19

exercise of due diligence. See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1).

20

To successfully challenge such a motion, Griffin will have to demonstrate that he is

21

entitled to equitable tolling. A federal habeas petitioner is entitled to equitable tolling if he

22

can show “‘(1) that he has been pursuing his rights diligently, and (2) that some

23

extraordinary circumstance stood in his way’ and prevented timely filing.” Holland v.

24

Florida, 560 U.S. 631, 649 (2010) (quoting Pace v. DiGuglielmo, 544 U.S. 408, 418

25

(2005)).

26
27
28

CONCLUSION
The petition is DISMISSED with leave to file an amended petition on or before
February 19, 2019. Griffin may wish to file a motion for a stay along with the amended
3

1

petition.

2

The filing fee has been paid.

3

IT IS SO ORDERED.

4

Dated: January 7, 2019

_________________________
WILLIAM H. ORRICK
United States District Judge

5
6
7
8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4