James v. People of the State California et al
Filing
4
ORDER by Judge Lucy H. Koh granting 3 Motion to Dismiss (Attachments: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service) (mpb, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/13/2012)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
MICHAEL JAMES,
11
Petitioner,
12
v.
13
14
15
WARDEN KEVIN CHAPPELL,
Respondent.
No. C 12-1475 LHK (PR)
ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO
DISMISS
16
17
Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, seeks a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to
18
28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging his conviction and sentence. Respondent has filed a motion to
19
dismiss for failure to exhaust. Although given an opportunity, Plaintiff did not file an
20
opposition. For the reasons below, the Court GRANTS Respondent’s motion to dismiss, and
21
DISMISSES this action.
22
23
BACKGROUND
Petitioner challenges his 2009 criminal conviction and sentence in the Alameda County
24
Superior Court. (Pet. at 2.) That same year, a petition to revoke Petitioner’s probation was filed,
25
and on October 13, 2009, the trial court found Petitioner in violation of his probation, and
26
committed him to 120 days in jail. (Mot. at 2.) The California Court of Appeal affirmed both
27
Petitioner’s original conviction, as well as the probation revocation, on May 11, 2011. (Mot.,
28
Ex. 1, App. A.) On July 27, 2011, the California Supreme Court denied review. (Mot., Ex. 2.)
Order Granting Motion to Dismiss
G:\PRO-SE\SJ.LHK\HC.12\James475mtdexh.wpd
1
Petitioner did not file any state habeas petitions challenging these convictions. The underlying
2
federal petition was filed on March 23, 2012.
3
In its order to show cause, this Court found that Petitioner presented two cognizable
4
claims: (1) Petitioner’s no contest plea was involuntary because he was not informed of the
5
direct consequences when accepting the plea, and (2) the prosecution withheld favorable,
6
exculpatory evidence.
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
10
judicial remedies, either on direct appeal or through collateral proceedings, by presenting the
11
highest state court available with a fair opportunity to rule on the merits of each and every claim
12
they seek to raise in federal court. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b), (c). The exhaustion-of-state-
13
remedies doctrine reflects a policy of federal-state comity to give the state “the initial
14
‘opportunity to pass upon and correct alleged violations of its prisoners’ federal rights.’” Picard
15
v. Connor, 404 U.S. 270, 275 (1971) (citations omitted). The exhaustion requirement is satisfied
16
only if the federal claim has been “fairly presented” to the state courts. See id.; Peterson v.
17
Lampert, 319 F.3d 1153, 1155-56 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc). The state’s highest court must be
18
given an opportunity to rule on the claims even if review is discretionary. See O’Sullivan v.
19
Boerckel, 526 U.S. 838, 845 (1999) (petitioner must invoke “one complete round of the State’s
20
established appellate review process.”). A federal district court must dismiss a federal habeas
21
petition containing any claim as to which state remedies have not been exhausted. See Rhines v.
22
Webber, 544 U.S. 269, 273 (2005).
23
Respondent moves to dismiss the petition on the ground that Petitioner failed to exhaust
24
either claim. Respondent attached a copy of Petitioner’s petition for review to the California
25
Supreme Court, which shows that the only claims Petitioner raised to the highest state court
26
were: (1) the trial court abused its discretion by denying Petitioner’s request to continue the
27
probation revocation hearing, and (2) the probation revocation was improperly based on a
28
finding that Petitioner was an aider and abettor. (Mot., Ex. 1 at 12-18.) Petitioner has not
Order Granting Motion to Dismiss
G:\PRO-SE\SJ.LHK\HC.12\James475mtdexh.wpd
2
1
submitted any evidence to the contrary. Thus, it appears that Petitioner has not fairly presented
2
his claims in the underlying federal petition of habeas corpus to the highest state court.
3
Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Respondent’s motion to dismiss and DISMISSES this action.
4
5
6
7
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, Respondent’s motion to dismiss is GRANTED. The petition
is dismissed because state court remedies were not exhausted before the petition was filed.
The federal rules governing habeas cases brought by state prisoners require a district
8
court that denies a habeas petition to grant or deny a certificate of appealability (“COA”) in its
9
ruling. See Rule 11(a), Rules Governing § 2254 Cases, 28 U.S.C. foll. § 2254. Petitioner has
10
not shown “that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the petition states a valid claim
11
of the denial of a constitutional right.” Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000).
12
Accordingly, a COA is DENIED.
13
The clerk shall terminate any pending motions and close the file.
14
IT IS SO ORDERED.
15
DATED:
11/12/12
LUCY H. KOH
United States District Judge
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Order Granting Motion to Dismiss
G:\PRO-SE\SJ.LHK\HC.12\James475mtdexh.wpd
3
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?