Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_10-cv-02376/USCOURTS-casd-3_10-cv-02376-0/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ADAM LIMBRICK,

Petitioner,

CASE NO. 10cv2376-JLS (MDD)

REPORT AND

RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED

STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE RE:

REGARDING RESPONDENTS’

MOTION TO DISMISS THE

PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS

CORPUS

[Doc. No. 9]

vs.

DOMINGO URIBE, JR., Warden

Respondent.

Respondents’ motion to dismiss the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus has been referred

to Magistrate Judge Dembin pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §636(b)(1) and Local Civil Rule HC.2 of the

United States District Court for the Southern District of California. For the reasons set forth

herein, it is recommended that Respondent’s motion be DENIED.

 I. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Petitioner Adam Limbrick, (hereinafter “Petitioner” or “Limbrick”), a state prisoner

currently serving his sentence of life without the possibility of parole, is proceeding pro se with a

Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus. [Doc. No. 1.] Domingo Uribe, Jr., Warden (hereinafter

“Respondent”) has moved this Court to dismiss the Petition because it is a mixed petition

containing an unexhausted claim. [Doc. No. 9.] Petitioner submitted his Opposition to

Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus. [Doc. No. 11.]

- 1 - 10cv-2376-JLS (MDD)

Case 3:10-cv-02376-JLS-MDD Document 14 Filed 06/29/11 Page 1 of 5
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

Based upon documents presently before the court and for reasons stated below, the Court

RECOMMENDS Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss be DENIED.

II. STATEMENT OF FACTS

On March 16, 2007, Petitioner was sentenced to state prison for life without the possibility

of parole for murder, a consecutive term of life with the possibility of parole for attempted

premeditated murder, a consecutive term of 25 years to life for the personal use of a firearm

enhancement, and a consecutive determinate term of 48 years. [Doc. No. 9 at 2.] Petitioner is

currently serving his sentence in state prison. [Doc. No. 9 at 1.]

On February 5, 2010, the California Court of Appeal affirmed the conviction. (Case

D050414.) (Lodgement 5.) The California Supreme Court denied the petitions for review on

January 9, 2010. (Lodgement 8.)

On November 17, 2010, Petitioner filed a petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus with the

United States District Court for the Southern District of California. [Doc. No. 1.] (Case No. 10-

cv-2376.)

On March 3, 2011, Respondent filed a Motion to Dismiss Petition for Writ of Habeas

Corpus Due to Lack of Exhaustion of Claim Four. [Doc. No. 9.] In response, Petitioner filed his

Opposition to Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss on April 18, 2011. [Doc. No. 11.]

III. SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss asserts that the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus should

be dismissed because it contains an unexhausted claim. [Doc. No. 9. at 6.] Respondent contends

that Claim Four is unexhausted. [Doc. No. 9. at 6.] In Claim Four, Petitioner asserts that one of

the statutes of which he was convicted is unconstitutionally vague. The defect claimed by the

Petitioner is that there is no distinction between the actus reas or mens rea requirements for first

degree felony murder and a special circumstances murder. [Doc. No. 9. at 6.] Respondent

contends that Claim Four was raised on direct appeal in the California Court of Appeal but was not

included in his petition for review in the Supreme Court. [Doc. No. 9. at 6.]

Petitioner concedes in his Opposition to Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss that his Petition

contains an unexhausted claim. [Doc. No. 11 at 1.] He wishes to dismiss the unexhausted claim

and continue with his remaining claims. [Doc. No. 11 at 1.]

- 2 - 10cv-2376-JLS (MDD)

Case 3:10-cv-02376-JLS-MDD Document 14 Filed 06/29/11 Page 2 of 5
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

IV. STANDARD OF REVIEW

A. Unexhausted Claims

Generally, an application for a writ of habeas corpus that contains unexhausted claims must

be dismissed. See Rose v. Lundy, 455 U.S. 509, 522 (1982). However, federal courts have the

discretion to deny a habeas application on the merits notwithstanding a petitioner’s failure to fully

exhaust state judicial remedies. See 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254(b)(2) (West Supp. 2006); Liegakos v.

Cooke, 106 F.3d 1381, 1388 (7th Cir. 1997). To exhaust state judicial remedies, a state prisoner

must present the California Supreme Court with a fair opportunity to rule on the merits of every

issue raised in his or her federal habeas petition. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b), (c); Granberry v. Greer, 481

U.S. 129, 133-134 (1987). The petitioner must have raised the very same federal claims brought in

the federal petition before the state supreme court. See Duncan v. Henry, 513 U.S. 364, 365-66

(1995). For example, “[i]f a habeas petitioner wishes to claim that an evidentiary ruling at a state

court trial denied him the due process of law guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment, he must

say so, not only in federal court, but in state court.” Id. at 366. 

V. DISCUSSION

A. The Petition Contains Unexhausted Claims

Petitioner concedes in his Opposition to Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss that his Petition

contains an unexhausted claim. [Doc. No. 11 at 1.] He “chooses the option of deleting claim 4

from the §225A petition and proceeding on the remaining exhausted claims contained therein.” 

[Doc. No. 11 at 1.] However, Petitioner fails to acknowledge that dismissing claim four will be

with prejudice. To ensure the Petitioner fully understands the consequences of his actions and his

available options, the Court has outlined them below. The below does not provide legal advice. It

merely lists the options that may be available to petitioners who file unexhausted claims in federal

court. The decision on how to proceed is solely and exclusively up to Petitioner. Where there is a

possible unexhausted claim Petitioner has the option of:

(1) filing further papers with the Court to demonstrate that Petitioner has in fact exhausted

all claims in state court; or

(2) filing a request for voluntary dismissal with prejudice of unexhausted claims and

- 3 - 10cv-2376-JLS (MDD)

Case 3:10-cv-02376-JLS-MDD Document 14 Filed 06/29/11 Page 3 of 5
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

proceeding in the current federal action with only the exhausted claims (if Petitioner chooses this

option, his abandoned unexhausted claims may be forever barred from federal court habeas

review); or

(3) filing a request for dismissal without prejudice of the current federal action and going to

state court to exhaust all unexhausted claims (Petitioner should consider whether all of his federal

claims will be barred by the one-year statute of limitations before choosing this option.); or

(4) filing a motion to stay the federal proceeding while he returns to state court to exhaust

his claims his unexhausted claims. The two methods available are the “stay and abeyance”, and

the “withdrawal and abeyance” procedure. Rhines v. Webber, 544 U.S. 269, 277-78 (2005);

Mayle v. Felix, 545 U.S. 644, 659 (2005).

Under the “stay and abeyance” procedure Petitioner must demonstrate there are arguably

meritorious claims which he wishes to return to state court to exhaust, that he is diligently

pursuing them in state court, and that good cause exists for his failure to timely exhaust his state

court remedies. Rhines, 544 U.S. at 277-78. Petitioner should ask the court to stay his mixed

petition while he returns to state court to exhaust.

Under the “withdrawal and abeyance” procedure Petitioner does not need to show good

cause for his failure to timely exhaust. However, the newly exhausted claims must either be timely

under the statute of limitations or “relate back” to the claims in the fully-exhausted petition by

sharing a “common core of operative facts” with the previously exhausted claims. Mayle, 545

U.S. 644, 659. If Petitioner wishes to use the “withdrawal and abeyance” method he must

voluntarily withdraw his unexhausted claims and ask the Court to stay the proceedings and hold

the fully-exhausted petition in abeyance until he can exhaust them in state court. After this

exhaustion, Petitioner must seek permission to amend his petition to include the newly exhausted

claims. King v. Ryan, 564 F.3d 1133 (9th Cir. 2005).

As noted above, Petitioner has acknowledged that his petition contains an unexhausted

claim. Based on Petitioner’s request to dismiss the unexhausted claim four, the Court recommends

that Defendant’s motion be DENIED.

VI. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION

For all of the foregoing reasons IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that the Court issue

- 4 - 10cv-2376-JLS (MDD)

Case 3:10-cv-02376-JLS-MDD Document 14 Filed 06/29/11 Page 4 of 5
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

an Order: (1) approving and adopting this Report and Recommendation; (2) DENYING

Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss as set forth herein.

If Petitioner chooses not to take any action the unexhausted claim will be dismissed

WITH prejudice in order to proceed in the current federal action with only the exhausted claims. 

If Petitioner chooses to take action, IT IS ORDERED that he do so no later than July 8, 2011

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Respondent reply to Petitioner’s action, if any, no later

than July 29, 2011.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: June 29, 2011

 

 Hon. Mitchell D. Dembin

 U.S. Magistrate Judge

- 5 - 10cv-2376-JLS (MDD)

Case 3:10-cv-02376-JLS-MDD Document 14 Filed 06/29/11 Page 5 of 5