Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_06-cv-01354/USCOURTS-casd-3_06-cv-01354-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 28:2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1 06cv1354-JAH(NLS)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RAUL VALDEZ,

Petitioner,

v.

DIRECTOR OF THE CALIFORNIA DEPT.

OF CORRECTIONS,

Respondent. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Civil No.06cv1354-JAH(NLS)

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

OF U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE RE:

DISMISSAL OF PETITION FOR WRIT

OF HABEAS CORPUS

Raul Valdez (“Petitioner”) is a California state prisoner serving consecutive terms of 15 years to

life for second degree murder and a life sentence for torture. He has filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas

Corpus (“petition”) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, challenging his state court conviction on four

grounds: (1) his Fifth and Fourteenth amendment due process rights were violated because he was not

aware that intent to cause death is an element of second degree murder; (2) his guilty plea to second

degree murder was involuntary because he was incompetent; (3) trial counsel was ineffective for

allowing him to plead guilty while under the influence of psychotropic drugs; and (4) appellate counsel

was ineffective for failing to argue on direct appeal that grounds one through three constituted denial of

effective assistance of counsel. (Petition, 6-9.) 

On July 13, 2006, Petitioner filed an application with the Court to proceed in forma pauperis

[Doc. No. 3]. On July 20, 2006, the Court issued an order granting Petitioner’s application and

notifying Petitioner regarding the possibility that his petition would be dismissed for failure to exhaust

his state court remedies prior to filing his federal habeas petition [Doc. No. 4]. Petitioner failed to allege

Case 3:06-cv-01354-JAH-NLS Document 6 Filed 10/18/06 Page 1 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2 06cv1354-JAH(NLS)

exhaustion with respect to Claim Four of his petition regarding ineffective assistance of appellate

counsel. (Petition, 9.) The Court advised Petitioner that in order to avoid a sua sponte dismissal of his

petition, he needed to choose one of four options available to him, including (1) demonstrating

exhaustion; (2) voluntarily dismissing his entire petition to return to state court and exhaust his

unexhausted claim; (3) formally abandoning his unexhausted claim; or (4) filing a motion to dismiss his

unexhausted claim without prejudice and to stay the federal proceeding while he returns to state court to

exhaust his unexhausted claim. (Court Order of July 20, 2006, 2-4, citing Rose v. Lundy, 455 U.S. 509

(1982).) The Court further instructed Petitioner that he had until September 11, 2006 to respond to the

Court’s order by choosing one of the four options and filing the appropriate papers with the Court. (Id.) 

The Court advised Petitioner that if he failed to respond, the Court would recommend to the presiding

District Judge that the petition be dismissed without prejudice. (Id. at 4.) 

To date, Petitioner has failed to respond to the Court’s July 20, 2006 Order. The exhaustion of

state court remedies is a prerequisite to the granting of a petition for writ of habeas corpus. 28 U.S.C. §

2254(b)(1). If exhaustion is to be waived, it must be waived explicitly by respondent’s counsel. 28

U.S.C. § 2254(b)(3). A waiver of exhaustion may not be implied or inferred. A petitioner satisfies the

exhaustion requirement by providing the highest state court with a full and fair opportunity to consider

all claims before presenting them to the federal court. Picard v. Connor, 404 U.S. 270, 276 (1971). The

United States Supreme Court has held that a federal district court may not entertain a petition for habeas

corpus unless the petitioner has exhausted state remedies with respect to each of the claims raised. Rose

v. Lundy, 455 U.S. 509 (1982). A mixed petition containing both exhausted and unexhausted claims

must be dismissed. Accordingly, the undersigned Magistrate Judge RECOMMENDS that the Petition

for Writ of Habeas Corpus be DISMISSED without prejudice due to Petitioner’s failure to exhaust his

unexhausted claim in state court prior to filing his federal petition. 

IT IS ORDERED that no later than November 17, 2006, any party to this action may file

written objections with the Court and serve a copy on all parties. The document should be captioned

“Objections to Report and Recommendation.”

/ / /

/ / /

Case 3:06-cv-01354-JAH-NLS Document 6 Filed 10/18/06 Page 2 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

3 06cv1354-JAH(NLS)

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that any reply to the objections shall be filed with the Court and

served on all parties no later than November 30, 2006. The parties are advised that failure to file

objections within the specified time may waive the right to raise those objections on appeal of the

Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: October 18, 2006

Hon. Nita L. Stormes

U.S. Magistrate Judge

Case 3:06-cv-01354-JAH-NLS Document 6 Filed 10/18/06 Page 3 of 3