Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_08-cv-00857/USCOURTS-casd-3_08-cv-00857-0/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. Petitioner has not set forth a date or any specification regarding the formal charges of

which he was convicted.

08cv857 WQH

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MICHAEL WILKERSON,

Plaintiff,

v.

ROBERT HORRELL, Warden,

Defendants.

08cv857 WQH (PCL)

REPORT AND

RECOMMENDATION ON

PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS

CORPUS 

(Doc No. 3)

I.

INTRODUCTION

Petitioner Michael Wilkerson (“Petitioner”), a state prisoner, filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas

Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, challenging a conviction following a jury trial in state court.1/

Petitioner presents two issues: (1) ineffectiveness of counsel; and (2) unfairness of the trial

proceedings. This case is before the undersigned Magistrate Judge pursuant to S.D. Cal. Civ. R.

72.1(c)(1)(c) for Proposed Findings of Fact and Recommendation for Disposition. For the reasons

set forth below, the Court respectfully recommends that the petition be DISMISSED.

/ /

/ /

Case 3:08-cv-00857-WQH-PCL Document 15 Filed 12/10/08 Page 1 of 4
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

08cv857 WQH

2

II.

BACKGROUND

Petitioner is a California prisoner currently incarcerated at Donovan Correctional Facility in

San Diego, California. (Doc. No. 3 Pet. at 1.) Petitioner appears to be serving a prison term of 57

years for “sex with a minor and drug convictions by using a minor to sell drugs and assault on a

spouse.” (Doc. No. 3 Pet. at 2.) Petitioner alleges counsel during trial failed to present an argument

in Petitioner’s defense based on a psychiatric report and a failure to locate Petitioner’s Social

Security number by the Social Security Administration. (Id.) Additionally, Petitioner alleges that

the prosecutor during trial failed to disclose pertinent evidence and that the trial judge was impartial

to the proceedings. (Id.) 

On May 12, 2008, Petitioner filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus but did not pay the

filing fee nor submit a request to proceed in forma pauperis. (Doc. No. 1.) On May 16, 2008, the

Court dismissed the Petition because Petitioner had failed to name a proper respondent and had also

failed to use a court-approved form. (Doc. No. 2.) Petitioner then filed an application to proceed

in forma pauperis and a First Amended Petition (hereinafter “FAP”) on July 10, 2008. (Doc. No.

3.) On July 16, 2008, the Court issued an Order granting Petitioner’s application to proceed in

forma pauperis and notifying Petitioner of his options to avoid dismissal of the Petition. (Doc. No.

5.) Specifically, Petitioner’s FAP contains two claims, one of which is unexhausted. (Id. at 2.) The

Order details Petitioner’s options to avoid dismissal of his current Petition which include

demonstrating exhaustion, voluntarily dismissing the Petition, formally abandoning the unexhausted

claim or filing a motion to stay the proceedings while he returns to state court to exhaust. (Id. at 2-

4.) Moreover, Petitioner was instructed to file any pleadings in accordance with these options by

August 25, 2008. (Id. at 3.) Petitioner failed to file any additional pleadings with the Court. He did,

however, submit a series of handwritten, ex-parte communications which are incoherent and from

which it is difficult to ascertain what Petitioner is requesting. (See Doc. Nos. 8, 11, 14.) 

/ /

/ /

/ /

Case 3:08-cv-00857-WQH-PCL Document 15 Filed 12/10/08 Page 2 of 4
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

08cv857 WQH

3

III.

DISCUSSION

Prisoners in state custody who wish to challenge either the fact or length of their

confinement in federal court by a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus are first required to exhaust

state judicial remedies, either on direct appeal of the conviction itself or through collateral

proceedings, by presenting the highest state court available with a fair opportunity to rule on the

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

Granberry v. Greer, 481 U.S. 129, 133-34 (1987). Moreover, Petitioner has the burden of

pleading exhaustion in his habeas Petition. See Cartwright v. Cupp, 650 F.2d 1103, 1104 (9th

Cir. 1981). 

Petitioner has not done so. Overall, the Petition is difficult to read and to the extent it is

legible, it does not present a coherent explanation of Petitioner’s claims. However, it is clear

from the information set forth in the Petition that Petitioner has made no attempt to exhaust his

state court remedies. (See Doc. No. 3 FAP at 7.) Petitioner declares he did not raise Ground 2 in

the California Supreme Court and provides no explanation as to why this is the case. (Id.) He

must present his claims concerning his trial and subsequent conviction to the California Supreme

Court and give that court an opportunity to rule on his claims before presenting these claims in a

federal habeas petition. Therefore, this Petition must be DISMISSED as unexhausted. 

V. 

CONCLUSION

The Court submits this Report and Recommendation to United States Chief District Judge

William Q. Hayes under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Local Civil Rule 72.1(c)(1)(c) of the United

States District Court for the Southern District of California. For the reasons outlined above, IT

IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that the Court issue an Order: (1) approving and adopting

this Report and Recommendation, and (2) directing that Judgment be entered dismissing the

Petition. 

/ /

/ /

Case 3:08-cv-00857-WQH-PCL Document 15 Filed 12/10/08 Page 3 of 4
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

IT IS ORDERED that no later than December 31, 2008 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.”

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

and served on all parties no later than January 14, 2009. 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. See Turner v. Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998); Martinez v. Ylst,

951 F.2d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 1991).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: December 10, 2008 

Peter C. Lewis

U.S. Magistrate Judge

United States District Court

cc: The Honorable William Q. Hayes

 All Counsel of Record

Case 3:08-cv-00857-WQH-PCL Document 15 Filed 12/10/08 Page 4 of 4