Shaw v. State of California et al

Filing 21

ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken granting 16 Motion to Dismiss (cwlc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/17/2010)

Shaw v. State of California

Doc. 21

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 United United States District Court For the Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 On January 8, 2009, Petitioner John Shaw, a California state prisoner, filed a pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. On October 20, 2009, Respondent v. ROBERT K. WONG, WARDEN, Respondent. / JOHN SHAW, Plaintiff, No. 09-00077 CW ORDER GRANTING RESPONDENT'S MOTION TO DISMISS (Docket No. 16) IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

filed a motion to dismiss the petition based on failure to exhaust state remedies. Petitioner filed two identical oppositions on On January 26, 2010,

December 14, 2009 and December 21, 2009. Respondent filed a reply.

Having considered all the papers

submitted by the parties, the Court GRANTS Respondent's motion to dismiss. BACKGROUND Petitioner John Shaw, also known as John Hsia, was tried by a jury and found guilty of three counts of grand theft, two counts of forgery, three counts of using personal identifying information

Dockets.Justia.com

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

without authorization, three counts of recording a false instrument, one count of conspiracy, one count of attempting to dissuade a witness, and one count of false application for a driver's license. enhancements. The jury also found two excessive taking

The trial court sentenced Petitioner to a term of

fourteen years and four months. Petitioner filed a timely appeal to the California court of appeal. On January 14, 2008, the appellate court affirmed the On February 14, 2008, Petitioner filed a

trial court's judgment.

petition for review in the California Supreme Court, asserting two claims: (1) insufficient evidence to convict on counts 9 and 10 -conspiracy to dissuade a witness and dissuading a witness -- and (2) failure by the trial court to strike an excessive taking enhancement. The petition was denied on April 9, 2008.

On January 8, 2009, Petitioner filed this federal habeas petition. Petitioner asserts the following: (1) Petitioner was

denied his "right to confrontation" because the prosecutor failed to provide a copy of the arrest report, failed to question a witness's inconsistent testimony and did not explain why a witness had been placed on the witness list; (2) Petitioner was not read his Miranda rights at the time of his arrest; (3) Petitioner was not told what crimes he was charged with and was detained for months without being informed of his status; (4) Petitioner's trial counsel was ineffective because counsel failed to depose or call witnesses who were crucial to Petitioner's defense; (5) the prosecution presented fraudulent evidence; (6) there was insufficient evidence to prove the false application for a driver's 2

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

license; (7) Petitioner was "selectively targeted" for prosecution,; (8) the prosecution conspired to defraud Petitioner of his civil rights; (9) the prosecution relied on inconsistent theories regarding a particular piece of evidence; and (10) Petitioner was denied access to a translator and was unable to assist in his defense due to his limited knowledge of the English language. He does not assert the two claims that he raised before

the California Supreme Court. Respondent moves to dismiss all of Petitioner's claims based on failure to exhaust state remedies. LEGAL STANDARD 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 available with a fair opportunity to rule on the merits of each and every claim they seek to raise in federal court. 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (b), (c); Granberry v.

Greer, 481 U.S. 129, 133-34 (1987); Rose v. Lundy, 455 U.S. 509, 515 (1982). The exhaustion-of-state-remedies doctrine reflects a policy of federal-state comity "to give the state the initial 'opportunity to pass upon and correct' alleged violations of its prisoners' federal rights." Picard v. Connor, 404 U.S. 270, 275 (1971). The

exhaustion requirement is satisfied only if the federal claim has been "fairly presented" to the state courts. Id.; Peterson v. The

Lampert, 319 F.3d 1153, 1155 (9th Cir. 2003)(en banc). 3

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

exhaustion requirement may also be satisfied if no state remedy remains available. 1996). Johnson v. Zenon, 88 F.3d 828, 829 (9th Cir.

A federal district court must dismiss a federal petition

containing any claim as to which state remedies have not been exhausted. Rhines v. Webber, 544 U.S. 269, 273-74 (2005).

For purposes of exhaustion, pro se petitions may, and sometimes should, be read differently from counseled petitions. Sandgathe v. Maass, 314 F.3d 371, 378 (9th Cir. 2002) (holding that neither confused arguments nor poor lawyering will necessarily defeat a pro se petitioner's otherwise adequate efforts to assert a federal claim in state court); Peterson v. Lampert, 319 F.3d 1153, 1159 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc) ("[T]he complete exhaustion rule is not to trap the unwary pro se prisoner."). DISCUSSION I. Exhaustion Respondent argues that none of Petitioner's claims were properly presented to the California Supreme Court and therefore none were exhausted. In support of the motion, Respondent has

filed a copy of the opinion of the California court of appeal affirming the judgment of conviction, and of Petitioner's petition for review filed in the California Supreme Court. This

documentation shows that Petitioner did not exhaust the claims he asserts in his federal habeas petition; neither of Petitioner's claims in his petition for review appear in his federal habeas petition. Petitioner's opposition essentially restates the claims Therefore, his petition must be

in his federal habeas petition.

dismissed because all his claims are unexhausted. 4

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 II.

Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Respondent's motion to dismiss. Certificate of Appealability The federal rules governing habeas cases brought by state prisoners have recently been amended to require a district court that dismisses or denies a habeas petition to grant or deny a certificate of appealability in its ruling. See Rule 11(a), Rules

Governing § 2254 Cases, 28 U.S.C. foll. § 2254 (effective December 1, 2009). For the reasons stated above, Petitioner has not shown "that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the district court was correct in its procedural ruling." 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). appealability is DENIED. CONCLUSION The instant action must be dismissed because none of Petitioner's claims in his federal habeas petition have been exhausted in state court. The Court GRANTS Respondent's motion to Slack v. McDaniel,

Accordingly, a certificate of

dismiss (Docket No. 16) and DENIES a certificate of appealability.

Dated September 17, 2010

CLAUDIA WILKEN United States District Judge

5

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Dated: September 17, 2010 John Shaw G60830 AKA John Hsia Ironwood State Prison CFBI-140L P.O. Box 2199 Blythe, CA 9222-2199 JOHN SHAW, Plaintiff, v. STATE OF CA et al, Defendant.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Case Number: CV09-00077 CW CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

/

I, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am an employee in the Office of the Clerk, U.S. District Court, Northern District of California. That on September 17, 2010, I SERVED a true and correct copy(ies) of the attached, by placing said copy(ies) in a postage paid envelope addressed to the person(s) hereinafter listed, by depositing said envelope in the U.S. Mail, or by placing said copy(ies) into an inter-office delivery receptacle located in the Clerk's office.

Richard W. Wieking, Clerk By: Ronnie Hersler, Adm. Law Clerk

6