Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_03-cv-01433/USCOURTS-caed-2_03-cv-01433-1/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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

TOUT SAECHAO,

Petitioner, No. CIV S-03-1433 ALA HC

vs.

D.L. RUNNELS, Warden, et al., ORDER

Respondents.

 /

Pending before the court is Petitioner Tout Saechao’s pro se application for a writ of

habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254.

The parties have not addressed the question of whether the doctrine of adequate and

independent state grounds bars our review of Petitioner’s challenge to the jury instructions in his

State trial, as stated in Grounds I & III of his petition. However, a federal court may raise the

issue of procedural default sua sponte if doing so furthers the interests of comity, federalism, and

judicial efficiency. Boyd v. Thompson, 147 F.3d 1124, 1127 (9th Cir. 1998). Here, Petitioner

failed to make a contemporaneous objection to the jury instructions challenged in his federal

habeas petition. Petitioner’s failure to object may have resulted in a procedural default of any

challenge relating to the alleged instructional error, unless the error affects the Petitioner’s

Case 2:03-cv-01433-ALA Document 20 Filed 02/05/08 Page 1 of 2
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

2

substantial rights. Cal. Penal Code § 1259; People v. Anderson, 152 Cal. App. 4th 919, 927

(2007) (citing People v. Flood, 18 Cal. 4th 470, 482 n.7 (1997)). A Petitioner’s substantial rights

are affected when an instructional error leads to a miscarriage of justice under People v. Watson. 

People v. Anderson, 152 Cal. App. 4th 919, 927 (Cal. Ct. App. 2007). A miscarriage of justice

occurs when the court, after an examination of the entire case, including the evidence, feels that

it is reasonably probable that a result more favorable to the appealing party would have been

reached in the absence of the error. People v. Watson, 46 Cal. 2d 818, 836 (1956).

CONCLUSION

In accordance with the above, The parties are directed to file, on or before March 3,

2008, simultaneous briefs of no more than ten pages, discussing whether Grounds I and III of

Petitioner’s petition are procedurally defaulted under the standards discussed above.

/////

DATED: February 4, 2008

/s/ Arthur L. Alarcón 

UNITED STATES CIRCUIT JUDGE

Sitting by Designation

Case 2:03-cv-01433-ALA Document 20 Filed 02/05/08 Page 2 of 2