Brown-Seals v. Davey et al
Filing
17
ORDER DISMISSING PETITION AND DENYING CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY. Signed by Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton on 1/8/18. ***Civil Case Terminated. Certificate of Service attached. (kcS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/8/2018)
1
2
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
3
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
4
5
MICHAEL IZELL BROWN-SEALS,
Petitioner,
6
7
8
9
10
Case No. 17-cv-05181-PJH
v.
DAVE DAVEY, et al.,
Respondent.
ORDER DISMISSING PETITION AND
DENYING CERTIFICATE OF
APPEALABILITY
Re: Dkt. Nos. 15, 16
Petitioner, a California prisoner, filed a pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The amended petition was dismissed with leave to amend
12
and petitioner has filed a second amended petition and several supplemental filings.
13
BACKGROUND
14
Petitioner was convicted in 2005 in Lake County and in 2015 in Mendocino
15
County. On August 16, 2017, the Ninth Circuit denied petitioner’s request to file a second
16
or successive petition challenging the 2005 conviction. Docket No. 1 at 26-27. The
17
Circuit noted that petitioner could file a habeas petition challenging the 2015 conviction.
18
A jury found petitioner guilty of possessing and selling cocaine and
19
methamphetamine in 2015. People v. Brown, No. A145580, 2016 WL 4098664, at *1
20
(Cal. Ct. App. July 29, 2016). It was also found that petitioner had sustained a prior strike
21
conviction and had been convicted of two other priors. Id. The trial court denied
22
petitioner’s motion to strike the prior strike conviction. Id. The trial court denied probation
23
and sentenced petitioner to a state prison terms of eight years and four months. Id.
24
The California Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment on direct appeal and denied
25
the sole claim in the petition which argued that the trial court’s refusal to strike the prior
26
strike conviction was improper. Id. at *2. It does not appear that petitioner presented any
27
claim regarding the 2015 conviction to the California Supreme Court. Petitioner has filed
28
at least one habeas petition in the Mendocino County Superior Court. Petition at 11-13.
DISCUSSION
1
2
Standard of Review
3
This court may entertain a petition for writ of habeas corpus “in behalf of a person
4
in custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court only on the ground that he is in
5
custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C.
6
§ 2254(a); Rose v. Hodges, 423 U.S. 19, 21 (1975). Habeas corpus petitions must meet
7
heightened pleading requirements. McFarland v. Scott, 512 U.S. 849, 856 (1994). An
8
application for a federal writ of habeas corpus filed by a prisoner who is in state custody
9
pursuant to a judgment of a state court must “specify all the grounds for relief available to
the petitioner ... [and] state the facts supporting each ground.” Rule 2(c) of the Rules
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
10
Governing § 2254 Cases, 28 U.S.C. § 2254. “‘[N]otice’ pleading is not sufficient, for the
12
petition is expected to state facts that point to a ‘real possibility of constitutional error.’”
13
Rule 4 Advisory Committee Notes (quoting Aubut v. Maine, 431 F.2d 688, 689 (1st Cir.
14
1970)).
15
Analysis
16
The original federal petition was dismissed with leave to amend because petitioner
17
raised claims regarding both the 2005 and 2015 convictions. Petitioner was told that he
18
could only challenge the 2015 conviction and should present claims in an amended
19
petition concerning that conviction. Petitioner was also told to either demonstrate that he
20
exhausted the claims in state court or file a motion for a stay. In the amended petition,
21
petitioner conceded that no claims had been presented the California Supreme Court.
22
Petitioner stated that he has filed several habeas petitions in the Mendocino County
23
Superior Court and submitted an appeal to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. He was
24
informed that those filings were insufficient to fully exhaust his claims as required before
25
filing a federal habeas petition. The amended petition was dismissed with leave to
26
amend and to file a motion for a stay.
27
28
Petitioner’s second amended petition presents several claims for relief. However,
while petitioner has stated that he seeks a stay, he has failed to present any arguments
2
1
in support of stay. In the prior orde the court outlined th legal sta
s
s
e
er,
t
he
andards for a stay
2
pursuant to Rhines v. Weber, 544 U.S. 269 (2
R
W
U
2005) and a
also the procedures for a stay
r
3
K
all,
d
h
v.
64
pursuant to Kelly v. Sma 315 F.3d 1063 (9th Cir. 2003) and King v Ryan, 56 F.3d
4
1133 (9th Cir. 2009). Be
.
ecause petitioner has presented no arguments in supp of his
port
5
req
quest for a stay, the motion is den
m
nied.
6
Petition has also indicated that he file a petition with the C
ner
ed
n
California Supreme
7
Co
ourt. Yet, th claims will only be exhausted w
he
w
e
when the C
California Supreme Co issues
ourt
8
a decision. This federal petition is dismissed w
d
T
d
without prej
judice and petitioner m file a
may
9
new petition when the claims have been exhausted. Pet
w
w
titioner is ag
gain informed that
bef
fore he may challenge either the fact or leng of his co
e
gth
onfinement in a habea petition
t
as
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
10
in this court, he must pre
t
h
esent to the California Supreme C
e
Court any c
claims he w
wishes to
12
raise in this co
ourt. See Rose v. Lun
R
ndy, 455 U. 509, 522 (1982) (h
.S.
2
holding ever claim
ry
13
raised in fede habeas petition mu be exha
eral
ust
austed).
CONCLU
USION
14
15
1.
Petitioner’s motions (D
s
Docket Nos 15, 16) a DENIED and this a
s.
are
D
action is
16
DIS
SMISSED. Petitioner may file a new petition in this court after he has fully e
e
exhausted
17
his claims in state court.
s
s
18
2.
easonable jurists woulld not find t result here debatable, a
j
the
Because re
19
cer
rtificate of appealabilit (“COA”) is DENIED. See Slack v. McDan
a
ty
.
k
niel, 529 U.S 473,
S.
20
484-85 (2000) (standard for COA).
d
21
IT IS SO ORDER
S
RED.
22
Da
ated: January 8, 2018
23
24
25
PH
HYLLIS J. H
HAMILTON
N
Un
nited States District Ju
s
udge
26
27
\\can
ndoak.cand.circ9
9.dcn\data\users\PJHALL\_psp\2
2017\2017_05181
1_Brown-Seals_
_v_Davey_(PSP)
)\17-cv-05181-PJ
JH-dis.docx
28
3
1
2
UNITED STATES D
D
DISTRICT C
COURT
3
NORTHER DISTRIC OF CALI
RN
CT
IFORNIA
4
5
MICHAEL IZ
M
ZELL BROW
WN-SEALS,
Case No. 1
17-cv-05181
1-PJH
Plaintiff,
6
v.
CERTIFIC
CATE OF S
SERVICE
7
8
DAVE DAVE et al.,
D
EY,
s.
Defendants
9
10
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
I, the un
ndersigned, hereby certify that I am an employe in the Offi of the Clerk, U.S.
ee
ice
Dis
strict Court, Northern Di
istrict of Cal
lifornia.
12
13
14
15
16
That on January 8, 2018, I SER
n
RVED a true and correct copy(ies) of the attache by
f
ed,
pla
acing said co
opy(ies) in a postage paid envelope a
d
addressed to the person(s hereinafte listed, by
s)
er
dep
positing said envelope in the U.S. Mail, or by pla
d
n
M
acing said co
opy(ies) into an inter-off delivery
o
ffice
y
rec
ceptacle loca in the Cl
ated
lerk's office.
.
17
18
19
ichael Izell Brown-Seals ID: V77488
B
s
8
Mi
Corcoran State Prison
e
P.O Box 8800
O.
0
Corcoran, CA 93212
20
21
22
Da
ated: January 8, 2018
y
23
24
Su
usan Y. Soon
ng
Cl
lerk, United States Distr Court
d
rict
25
26
27
28
By
y:_________
___________
_______
K
Kelly Collins, Deputy Cle to the
,
erk
H
Honorable PH
HYLLIS J. H
HAMILTON
N
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?