Degfu v. Bennett

Filing 4

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE. Petitioner shall SHOW CAUSE, by October 25, 2024, why his petition and this action should not be dismissed for failure to exhaust state court remedies. The Clerk is directed to RE-NOTE the motion to proceed in forma pauperis (Dkt. #3 ) to October 25, 2024. Signed by Judge Theresa L Fricke. **3 PAGE(S), PRINT ALL**(Dereje Degfu, Prisoner ID: 400704)(MW)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT TACOMA

5
6
7
8
9
10
11

DEREJE ASRAT DEGFU,
v.

Petitioner,

Case No. 2:24-cv-01275-JNW-TLF
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

JASON BENNETT,
Respondent.
Petitioner Dereje Asrat Degfu is a state prisoner who is currently confined at the

12

Stafford Creek Corrections Center in Aberdeen, Washington, pursuant to a judgment

13

and sentence entered in King County Superior Court. Dkt. 3-1 at 1, 11. Petitioner

14

presents to the Court for filing a petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. §

15

2241 asserting that his King Superior Court sentence is invalid because former RCW

16

9.94A.507 is unconstitutional on its face and violates his Sixth Amendment right to a

17

jury trial. Id. at 6. He seeks to have this Court review whether state law violates federal

18

law and to “issue an unconditional writ releasing [him] from custody.” Id. at 7; see also,

19

Memorandum, Dkt. 3-1 at 9-10.

20

Petitioner cites Castro v. United States, 540 U.S. 375 (2003) and objects to

21

having this Court review his case under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Dkt. 3-1 at 9-10. The Ninth

22

Circuit has held that “28 U.S.C. § 2254 is the exclusive vehicle for a habeas petition by

23

a state prisoner in custody pursuant to a state court judgment[.]” White v. Lambert, 370

24

F.3d 1002, 1009-10 (9th Cir. 2004), overruled on other grounds by Hayward v. Marshall,

25
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE - 1

1

603 F.3d 546 (9th Cir. 2010) (en banc). The Castro holding, cited by petitioner, does not

2

apply in this situation because it was related to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 and whether the

3

federal district court improperly applied the successive petition rule. Under White v.

4

Lambert, the petition for writ of habeas corpus in this case is properly reviewed under §

5

2254. Id.; see Dominguez v. Kernan, 906 F.3d 1127, 1134-1137 (9th Cir. 2018)

6

(discussing the difference between cases properly brought under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 as

7

opposed to those properly brought under § 2254).

8

To obtain relief under § 2254, a petitioner must demonstrate that each of his

9

claims for federal habeas relief has been properly exhausted in the state courts. 28

10

U.S.C. § 2254(b)-(c). The exhaustion requirement is a matter of comity, intended to

11

afford the state courts “an initial opportunity to pass upon and correct alleged violations

12

of its prisoners’ federal rights.” Picard v. Connor, 404 U.S. 270, 275 (1971) (internal

13

quotation marks and citations omitted). To provide the state courts with the requisite

14

opportunity to consider his federal claims, a prisoner must “fairly present” his claims to

15

each appropriate state court for review, including a state supreme court with powers of

16

discretionary review. Baldwin v. Reese, 541 U.S. 27, 29 (2004) (citing Duncan v. Henry,

17

513 U.S. 364, 365 (1995), and O’Sullivan v. Boerckel, 526 U.S. 838, 845 (1999)).

18

In this case, petitioner makes clear that he has not presented the issue raised in

19

his petition to any state appellate court for review. Dkt. 3-1 at 6-7. Petitioner’s claim is

20

therefore unexhausted and not currently eligible for federal habeas review. Accordingly,

21

the Court hereby ORDERS as follows:

22
23

(1)

Petitioner shall SHOW CAUSE, by October 25, 2024, why his petition and

this action should not be dismissed for failure to exhaust state court remedies. Failure to

24
25
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE - 2

1

timely respond to this Order will result in a recommendation that this action be

2

dismissed.

3
4
5
6
7
8
9

(2)

The Clerk is directed to NOTE this matter on the Court’s motion calendar

for October 25, 2024, for review of petitioner’s response to this Order to Show Cause.
(3)

The Clerk is directed to RE-NOTE the motion to proceed in forma

pauperis (Dkt. 3) to October 25, 2024.
(4)

The Clerk is directed to send copies of this Order to petitioner.

Dated this 25th day of September, 2024.

10

A

11
12

Theresa L. Fricke
United States Magistrate Judge

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE - 3