Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-03048/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-03048-2/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JASON CASTLE,

Petitioner,

 vs.

JEANNE WOODFORD,

Respondent.

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C 05-3048 JSW (PR)

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO

DISMISS PETITION FOR FAILURE

TO RAISE A FEDERAL

CONSTITUTIONAL CLAIM

(Docket nos. 8, 15)

INTRODUCTION

Petitioner, a state prisoner incarcerated at Avenal State Prison in Avenal,

California, filed a pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. On

January 12, 2006, this Court ordered Respondent to show cause why the writ should not

issue (docket no. 4). On February 9, 2006, Respondent filed a motion to dismiss the

petition for failure to allege the violation of a federal constitutional right (docket no. 8). 

Petitioner has filed a “motion for the mailbox rule” (docket no. 15) and a “Denial and

Exception to the Return” in opposition to the motion (docket no. 16). Petitioner’s

motion is GRANTED in that the Court has found Petitioner’s denial timely and

considered it in deciding the motion (docket no. 15).

BACKGROUND

The parties agree on the following procedural history: Petitioner was convicted

after a guilty plea of forcible rape and forcible oral copulation in Mendocino County

Superior Court. On April 24, 2002, he was sentenced to twelve years in state prison. 

Case 3:05-cv-03048-JSW Document 19 Filed 01/25/07 Page 1 of 6
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

See, http://appellatecases.courtinfo.ca.gov.

2

Petitioner appealed his conviction to the California Court of Appeal, which affirmed the

conviction, and to the Supreme Court of California, which denied Petitioner's petition for

review. Thereafter, he sought state habeas corpus relief from the Supreme Court of

California, which denied his request on April 13, 2005. Petitioner filed the present

petition on July 28, 2005.

DISCUSSION

Respondent now moves to dismiss the petition on th grounds that it fails to state a

federal constitutional violation with regard to Petitioner’s claims of sentencing error by

the state courts. Further, Respondent argues that even if a constitutional violation were

alleged, that any such claim was not exhausted in the state courts.

In the petition, Petitioner claims that his consecutive sentencing on two separate

sex offenses was error because there was not necessarily an “appreciable amount of

time” between the commission of the two offenses to which he plead guilty and that the

mere commission of two offenses was insufficient to justify the consecutive sentence. 

Petitioner’s habeas petition did not specifically identify any federal claims that he sought

to raise. 

In his opposition to the motion, Petitioner does not identify a federal basis for his

state sentencing claims. Instead, Petitioner takes issue with the state sentencing judge’s

reliance on information about his case contained in the police report and the probation

report prepared for his sentencing. Additionally, in support of his opposition, Petitioner

attaches another habeas petition form, under the label “Attachment B,” which includes

new claims under Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000) and Blakely v.

Washington, 542 U.S. 296 (2004) which do not appear to have been raised earlier in this

or any of the state appellate courts.1

 It is unclear whether Petitioner, by filing a new

petition as an attachment in support of his opposition, seeks to amend his federal petition. 

Case 3:05-cv-03048-JSW Document 19 Filed 01/25/07 Page 2 of 6
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

However, given that possibility, the Court will treat this attachment to the opposition as a

motion to amend the petition.

 A person in custody pursuant to the judgment of a state court can obtain a federal

writ of habeas corpus only on the ground that he is in custody in violation of the

Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a). In other

words, a writ of habeas corpus is available under § 2254(a) "only on the basis of some

transgression of federal law binding on the state courts." Middleton v. Cupp, 768 F.2d

1083, 1085 (9th Cir. 1985) (citing Engle v. Isaac, 456 U.S. 107, 119 (1982)), cert.

denied, 478 U.S. 1021 (1986). 

It is unavailable for violations of state law or for alleged error in the interpretation

or application of state law. Estelle v. McGuire, 502 U.S. 62, 67-68 (1991); Engle, 456

U.S. at 119; Peltier v. Wright, 15 F.3d 860, 861-62 (9th Cir. 1994); see, e.g., Little v.

Crawford, 449 F.3d 1075, 1082 (9th Cir. 2006) (claim that state supreme court

misapplied state law or departed from its earlier decisions does not provide a ground for

habeas relief); Moore v. Rowland, 367 F.3d 1199, 1200 (9th Cir. 2004) (per curiam)

(state’s violation of its separation-of-powers principles does not give rise to a federal due

process violation). It is unavailable merely because "something in the state proceedings

was contrary to general notions of fairness or violated some federal procedural right

unless the Constitution or other federal law specifically protects against the alleged

unfairness or guarantees the procedural right in state court." Middleton, 768 F.2d at

1085. 

State sentencing courts must be accorded wide latitude in their decisions as to

punishment. See Walker v. Endell, 850 F.2d 470, 476 (9th Cir. 1987), cert. denied,

488 U.S. 926, and cert. denied, 488 U.S. 981 (1988). Generally, therefore, a federal

court may not review a state sentence that is within statutory limits. See id. 

The constitutional guarantee of due process is applicable at sentencing. See 

Gardner v. Florida, 430 U.S. 349, 358 (1977). A federal court may vacate a state

Case 3:05-cv-03048-JSW Document 19 Filed 01/25/07 Page 3 of 6
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 4

sentence imposed in violation of due process; for example, if a state trial judge 

(1) imposed a sentence in excess of state law, see Walker, 850 F.2d at 476; see also

Marzano v. Kincheloe, 915 F.2d 549, 552 (9th Cir. 1990) (plea of guilty does not permit

state to impose sentence in excess of state law despite agreement of defendant to

sentence), or (2) enhanced a sentence based on materially false or unreliable information

or based on a conviction infected by constitutional error, see United States v. Hanna, 

49 F.3d 572, 577 (9th Cir. 1995); Walker, 850 F.2d at 477; accord Brothers v. Dowdle,

817 F.2d 1388, 1390 (9th Cir. 1987) (factual basis required for factors when factors used

to aggravate sentence). Sentencing a defendant under the wrong statute may itself be a

due process violation when the jury's proper discretion is impaired. Murtishaw v.

Woodford, 255 F.3d 926, 969 (9th Cir. 2001) (citing Hicks v. Oklahoma, 447 U.S. 343

(1980)); see id. (finding due process violation where jury given wrong statute to apply). 

However, federal courts must generally defer to the state courts' interpretation of

state sentencing laws. See Bueno v. Hallahan, 988 F.2d 86, 88 (9th Cir. 1993). "Absent

a showing of fundamental unfairness, a state court's misapplication of its own sentencing

laws does not justify federal habeas relief." Christian v. Rhode, 41 F.3d 461, 469 (9th

Cir. 1994); see, e.g., Miller v. Vasquez, 868 F.2d 1116, 1118-19 (9th Cir. 1989) (whether

assault with deadly weapon qualifies as "serious felony" under California's sentence

enhancement provisions, Cal. Penal Code §§ 667(a) and 1192.7(c)(23), is question of

state sentencing law and does not state constitutional claim).

In this case, Petitioner argues that the state trial judge who sentenced him to a

term of 12 years after his guilty plea to forcible rape and forcible oral copulation

committed error by sentencing him consecutively on the convictions. Petitioner argues

that the trial court wrongly applied California Penal Code § 667.6(c), under which he

was sentenced to consecutive terms, because the trial court incorrectly found that

Petitioner had an opportunity to reflect between the two crimes. Petitioner argues that

the Court should have required that “an appreciable amount of time” must pass between

Case 3:05-cv-03048-JSW Document 19 Filed 01/25/07 Page 4 of 6
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 5

the criminal acts before a consecutive sentence can be imposed. However, Petitioner’s

claim does not present a claim for federal habeas relief. Middleton, 768 F.2d at 1085. As

such, Respondent’s motion is GRANTED (docket no. 8).

In opposition to Respondent’s motion, Petitioner does not contend that his habeas

claims presented federal constitutional questions. Nor does he assert that any federal

claims had been exhausted in the highest state court. Respondent has provided the Court

a copy of Petitioner’s briefs on appeal in the state courts and it does not appear that any

federal issues were presented to the state courts. Petitioner has filed an attachment to his

opposition, in which he apparently moves to amend the petition to raise additional

claims, which are also apparently unexhausted. 

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 judicial remedies, either on direct appeal or through collateral proceedings, by

presenting the highest state court available with a fair opportunity to rule on the merits of

each and every claim they seek to raise in federal court. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b), (c);

Rose v. Lundy, 455 U.S. 509, 515-16 (1982); Duckworth v. Serrano, 454 U.S. 1, 3

(1981); McNeeley v. Arave, 842 F.2d 230, 231 (9th Cir. 1988). The state's highest court

must be given an opportunity to rule on the claims even if review is discretionary. See

O'Sullivan v. Boerckel, 526 U.S. 838, 845 (1999) (petitioner must invoke “one complete

round of the State’s established appellate review process.”).

The United States Supreme Court has held that a district court may stay a mixed

habeas petition to allow the petitioner to exhaust unexhausted claims in the state courts. 

Rhines v. Webber, 544 U.S. 269, 277-78 (2005). A district court does not have discretion

to stay a petition containing only unexhausted claims, however, even where the record

shows that there were exhausted claims that could have been included. Raspberry v.

Garcia, 448 F.3d 1150, 1154 (9th Cir. 2006) (declining to extend the rule in Rhines to

completely unexhausted petitions and finding that the district court must dismiss a

Case 3:05-cv-03048-JSW Document 19 Filed 01/25/07 Page 5 of 6
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 6

completely unexhausted petition based on Jimenez v. Rice, 276 F.3d 478, 481 (9th Cir.

2001)). In this case, it is apparent that there are no exhausted claims currently before the

Court, either in the petition or in Petitioner’s “Attachment B.” Therefore, the case must

be dismissed.

However, a dismissal solely for failure to exhaust is not a bar to Petitioner's

returning to federal court after exhausting available state remedies. See Trimble v. City

of Santa Rosa, 49 F.3d 583, 586 (9th Cir. 1995). Accordingly, this petition is

DISMISSED without prejudice to Petitioner's filing a new federal habeas petition once

he has exhausted state remedies by presenting his claims to the highest state court.

CONCLUSION

Respondent’s motion to dismiss is GRANTED (docket no. 8). The petition for writ

of habeas corpus is DISMISSED for failure to state a claim for federal habeas relief. The

clerk shall enter judgment and close the file. This order terminates all pending motions.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: January 25, 2007 JEFFREY S. WHITE

United States District Judge

Case 3:05-cv-03048-JSW Document 19 Filed 01/25/07 Page 6 of 6