Thomas v. Beneditti et al

Filing 37

ORDERED that Rs' # 32 Motion to dismiss is GRANTED. Ground 2 is DISMISSED with prejudice as procedurally defaulted. This action is DISMISSED without prejudice for P's failure to exhaust his available remedies in the state courts. Clerk shall enter judgment accordingly. FURTHER ORDERED that a certificate of appealability is DENIED. Signed by Judge Howard D. McKibben on 12/15/2011. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - DRM)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEVADA 6 7 8 9 EDDIE JAMES THOMAS, JR., 10 Petitioner, Case No. 3:09-CV-00455-HDM-(WGC) ORDER 11 vs. 12 JAMES BENEDETTI, et al., 13 Respondents. 14 15 Before the court are the fourth amended petition for a writ of 16 habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (#27), respondents’ 17 motion to dismiss and exhibits (#32), and petitioner’s response 18 (#34). 19 relief have not been exhausted in state court, and the court finds 20 that the remaining ground for relief is procedurally defaulted. 21 The court grants the motion (#32) and dismisses the action. 22 The court finds that four of petitioner’s five grounds for In the Eighth Judicial District Court of the State of Nevada, 23 petitioner was charged with five counts of statutory sexual 24 seduction, all upon the same victim. 25 prosecution moved to admit evidence of other crimes: 26 report from Texas, in which the victim in the current case said 27 that she and petitioner had sexual intercourse, and a 1995 28 conviction in the Eighth Judicial District Court for sexual assault Ex. 1. Before trial, the An arrest 1 upon a different victim. 2 evidentiary hearing and granted the motion. 3 admission of this evidence is the basis of at least three of the 4 five grounds in the fourth amended petition (#27). 5 to trial, and he was found guilty and convicted of all five counts. 6 Ex. 18. 7 affirmed. 8 9 Ex. 2. The trial court held an Ex. 4, 5. The Petitioner went Petitioner appealed, and the Nevada Supreme Court Ex. 24. While his direct appeal was pending, petitioner filed a habeas corpus petition in the state district court. Ex. 20. After the 10 Nevada Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of conviction, 11 petitioner filed another habeas corpus petition. 12 state district court denied the petition. 13 appealed, and the Nevada Supreme Court affirmed. 14 Petitioner then commenced this action. 15 Ex. 26. Ex. 28, 29. The Petitioner Ex. 31. Respondents contend that all five grounds of the fourth 16 amended petition (#27) are unexhausted. With respect to ground 2, 17 respondents argue in the alternative that it is procedurally 18 defaulted. 19 the court will address the grounds out of numerical order. Because the court agrees with the alternative argument, 20 Before a federal court may consider a petition for a writ of 21 habeas corpus, the petitioner must exhaust the remedies available 22 in state court. 23 relief, a petitioner must fairly present that ground to the state’s 24 highest court, describing the operative facts and legal theory, and 25 give that court the opportunity to address and resolve the ground. 26 See Duncan v. Henry, 513 U.S. 364, 365 (1995) (per curiam); 27 Anderson v. Harless, 459 U.S. 4, 6 (1982). 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b). 28 -2- To exhaust a ground for 1 “[A] petitioner for habeas corpus relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2 2254 exhausts available state remedies only if he characterized the 3 claims he raised in state proceedings specifically as federal 4 claims. 5 specific provisions of the federal constitution or statutes or 6 cited to federal case law.” 7 (9th Cir. 2000) (emphasis in original), amended, 247 F.3d 904 (9th 8 Cir. 2001). 9 constitutional principles will also suffice. In short, the petitioner must have either referenced Lyons v. Crawford, 232 F.3d 666, 670 Citation to state case law that applies federal Peterson v. Lampert, 10 319 F.3d 1153, 1158 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc). “The mere 11 similarity between a claim of state and federal error is 12 insufficient to establish exhaustion. 13 broad constitutional principles, such as due process, equal 14 protection, and the right to a fair trial, are insufficient to 15 establish exhaustion.” 16 Cir. 1999) (citations omitted). Moreover, general appeals to Hiivala v. Wood, 195 F.3d 1098, 1106 (9th 17 Ground 1 is a claim that the 5th and 6th Amendments were 18 violated because the trial court did not give the jury a limiting 19 instruction before the introduction of evidence of other crimes.1 20 Petitioner admits that he did not raise this issue either on direct 21 appeal or in his state-court habeas corpus petitions. 22 Amended Petition (#27), p. 4. 23 issue was that state law, Nev. Rev. Stat. § 48.045, was violated in 24 admitting evidence of other crimes; petitioner did not raise as an Fourth On direct appeal, petitioner’s sole 25 26 27 28 1 The trial court gave the limiting instruction to the jury after the close of evidence, along with the other instructions. Ex. 12, Instruction 10. -3- 1 issue the timing of the limiting instruction. 2 Court even noted: 3 4 5 6 7 The Nevada Supreme We note that the district court did not provide the jury with a limiting instruction prior to the introduction of the evidence, informing them that the evidence could not be considered to show criminal predisposition but only for the limited purposes allowable under NRS 48.045(2), because defense counsel objected to the State’s proffered instruction and expressly requested, for tactical reasons, that the district court not provide such an instruction at that time. And Thomas does not allege on appeal that the jury was not properly instructed prior to deliberations. 8 9 Ex. 24, pp. 2-3 (#32) (emphasis in original; footnote omitted). 10 See also Ex. 10, pp. 109-10 (#32) (discussion at trial about 11 proffered instruction). 12 Ground 1 is not exhausted. Ground 3 is a claim that the 6th and 14th Amendments were 13 violated because of error by the trial court or misconduct of the 14 prosecutor in allowing perjured statements by the victim the Texas 15 arrest report to be admitted into evidence. 16 note that petitioner did not raise this claim on direct appeal or 17 in his state habeas corpus petition. 18 3 is unexhausted. 19 Respondents correctly See Ex. 22, 26 (#32). Ground Ground 4 is a claim that the 5th and 6th Amendments were 20 violated because the trial court did not accept a proposed jury 21 instruction on “whether or not to believe a witness.” 22 Respondents correctly note that petitioner did not raise this claim 23 on direct appeal or in his state habeas corpus petition. 24 22, 26 (#32). See Ex. 13. See Ex. Ground 4 is unexhausted. 25 Ground 5 is a claim that the 5th and 6th Amendments were 26 violated because of error by the trial court or misconduct by the 27 prosecutor in admitting perjured testimony of the victim that was 28 inconsistent with her prior statements to a North Las Vegas police -4- 1 officer. 2 this claim on direct appeal or in his state habeas corpus petition. 3 See Ex. 22, 26 (#32). 4 Respondents correctly note that petitioner did not raise Ground 5 is unexhausted. Petitioner does not dispute respondents’ arguments. Instead, 5 he argues that his state-court habeas corpus petition was defective 6 or improper because he prepared it while he was not in possession 7 of the trial transcripts. 8 court that petitioner has exhausted his grounds for relief. 9 anything, it is an argument that the state-law bars against 10 untimely and successive petitions should be waived, should 11 petitioner return to state court.2 This argument does not persuade the If 12 Ground 2 is a claim that the 5th and 6th Amendments were 13 violated because the trial court admitted evidence of other crimes. 14 On direct appeal, petitioner’s sole issue was that state law, Nev. 15 Rev. Stat. § 48.045, was violated in admitting evidence of other 16 crimes. 17 any provision of federal law. 18 the issue solely as a question of state law. 19 Consequently, petitioner did not exhaust this issue on direct 20 appeal. 21 petition that petitioner filed in state court, he alleged: 22 23 24 25 See Ex. 22, pp. 5-12 (#32). Petitioner did not refer to The Nevada Supreme Court addressed See Lyons, 232 F.3d at 670. See Ex. 24, pp. 1-2. In the second habeas corpus 7. Petitioner was denied due process and the right to present a defense to criminal charges when the trial judge allowed State’s Motion: Admit Evidence of Other Crimes, admissible evidence proffered by the defense to not allow a Evidentiary hearing. 8. The prosecutor violated by holding a illegal Evidentiary Hearing for [the victim]. Sufficient proof of the prior 26 27 2 28 This court makes no prediction whether the state courts would accept the argument. -5- 1 2 3 offense, including admissions by the petitioner. Courts cannot hold Evidentiary Hearing base on non-conviction testimonies. Was not Trial or convicted of Texas crime, therefore cannot use or bring in Texas cases. Hear argument on Judgement of Conviction. . . . 4 Ex. 26, pp. 3-4 (#32). Although these allegations are difficult to 5 understand, by construing them very liberally the court assumes 6 that petitioner is raising the same issue of federal law that he 7 raises in ground 2. 8 allegations as such, and the response argued that allegations were 9 barred by Nev. Rev. Stat. § 34.810 because petitioner should have The response to the state petition treated the 10 raised them on direct appeal. 11 presented his issues of federal law to the state courts fairly 12 enough to be recognized, and ground 2 is exhausted. 13 Ex. 27, pp. 3-4. Petitioner The court still cannot consider ground 2 on its merits because 14 it is procedurally defaulted. 15 state habeas corpus petition, the Nevada Supreme Court held: 16 17 18 19 On appeal from the denial of the To the extent that appellant raised any claims independently from his claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, those claims were waived as they could have been raised on direct appeal, and appellant failed to demonstrate good cause for his failure to do so. NRS 34.810(1)(b). Ex. 31, p. 2 n.1 (#32). 20 A federal court will not review a claim for habeas corpus 21 relief if the decision of the state court regarding that claim 22 rested on a state-law ground that is independent of the federal 23 question and adequate to support the judgment. 24 Thompson, 501 U.S. 722, 730-31 (1991). 25 26 27 Coleman v. In all cases in which a state prisoner has defaulted his federal claims in state court pursuant to an independent and adequate state procedural rule, federal habeas review of the claims is barred unless the prisoner can demonstrate cause for the default and actual prejudice as a result of the alleged violation of federal law, or 28 -6- 1 demonstrate that failure to consider the claims will result in a fundamental miscarriage of justice. 2 3 Id. at 750; see also Murray v. Carrier, 477 U.S. 478, 485 (1986). 4 The ground for dismissal upon which the Nevada Supreme Court relied 5 in this case is an adequate and independent state rule. 6 Nevada, 329 F.3d 1069, 1074 (9th Cir. 2003). 7 Vang v. Petitioner does not argue that cause and prejudice exist to 8 excuse this procedural default. 9 consider cause or prejudice. 10 27 (9th Cir. 2004). 11 Consequently, the court will not Casey v. Moore, 386 F.3d 896, 921 n. defaulted. 12 The court dismisses ground 2 as procedurally With the dismissal of ground 2, the rest of the fourth amended 13 petition (#27) is wholly unexhausted, and the court will dismiss 14 this action. 15 procedural default of a subsequent petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 16 § 2254. The court makes no finding about the timeliness or 17 Reasonable jurists would not find the court’s conclusions to 18 be debatable or wrong, and the court will not issue a certificate 19 of appealability. 20 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that respondents’ motion to dismiss 21 (#32) is GRANTED. Ground 2 is DISMISSED with prejudice as 22 procedurally defaulted. 23 for petitioner’s failure to exhaust his available remedies in the 24 state courts. 25 accordingly. 26 /// 27 /// 28 /// This action is DISMISSED without prejudice The clerk of the court shall enter judgment -7- 1 2 3 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a certificate of appealability is DENIED. DATED: December 15, 2011. 4 5 6 ______________________________________ HOWARD D. MCKIBBEN United States District Judge 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -8-

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?