Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-01524/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-01524-3/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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RAMIRO GARZA, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

vs. )

)

)

HABEAS CORPUS, )

)

Respondent. )

)

)

___________________________________ )

1:06-cv-01524 OWW WMW HC

MEMORANDUM OPINION

AND ORDER RE DISMISSAL

OF PETITION FOR WRIT OF

HABEAS CORPUS

Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas

corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Pursuant to Rule 4, Rules Governing Section 2254

Cases, this court has conducted a preliminary review of this case. The court finds that it

plainly appears from the petition that Petitioner is not entitled to relief in this court. 

Accordingly, this petition will be dismissed.

LEGAL STANDARD

JURISDICTION

Relief by way of a petition for writ of habeas corpus extends to a person in custody

Case 1:06-cv-01524-OWW -WMW Document 12 Filed 02/12/07 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 2

pursuant to the judgment of a state court if the custody is in violation of the Constitution or

laws or treaties of the United States. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a); 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c)(3); Williams

v. Taylor, 120 S.Ct. 1495, 1504 fn.7 (2000). 

On April 24, 1996, Congress enacted the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty

Act of 1996 (“AEDPA”), which applies to all petitions for writ of habeas corpus filed after its

enactment. Lindh v. Murphy, 521 U.S. 320, 117 S.Ct. 2059, 2063 (1997), cert. denied, 522

U.S. 1008, 118 S.Ct. 586 (1997); Jeffries v. Wood, 114 F.3d 1484, 1499 (9 Cir. 1997) th

(quoting Drinkard v. Johnson, 97 F.3d 751, 769 (5 Cir.1996), cert. denied, 520 U.S. 1107, th

117 S.Ct. 1114 (1997), overruled on other grounds by Lindh v. Murphy, 521 U.S. 320, 117

S.Ct. 2059 (1997) (holding AEDPA only applicable to cases filed after statute's enactment). 

The instant petition was filed on October 20, 2006, after the enactment of the AEDPA, thus it

is governed by its provisions. 

STANDARD OF REVIEW

This court may entertain a petition for writ of habeas corpus “in behalf of a person in

custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court 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). 

The AEDPA altered the standard of review that a federal habeas court must apply

with respect to a state prisoner's claim that was adjudicated on the merits in state court.

Williams v. Taylor, 120 S.Ct. 1495, 1518-23 (2000). Under the AEDPA, an application for

habeas corpus will not be granted unless the adjudication of the claim “resulted in a decision

that was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal

law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States;” or “resulted in a decision that

was based on an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented in

the State Court proceeding.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d); Lockyer v. Andrade, 123 S.Ct. 1166, 1173

(2003) (disapproving of the Ninth Circuit’s approach in Van Tran v. Lindsey, 212 F.3d 1143

(9 Cir. 2000)); Williams v. Taylor, 120 S.Ct. 1495, 1523 (2000). “A federal habeas court th

Case 1:06-cv-01524-OWW -WMW Document 12 Filed 02/12/07 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 3

may not issue the writ simply because that court concludes in its independent judgment that

the relevant state-court decision applied clearly established federal law erroneously or

incorrectly.” Lockyer, at 1174 (citations omitted). “Rather, that application must be

objectively unreasonable.” Id. (citations omitted). 

While habeas corpus relief is an important instrument to assure that individuals are

constitutionally protected, Barefoot v. Estelle, 463 U.S. 880, 887, 103 S.Ct. 3383, 3391-3392

(1983); Harris v. Nelson, 394 U.S. 286, 290, 89 S.Ct. 1082, 1086 (1969), direct review of a

criminal conviction is the primary method for a petitioner to challenge that conviction. 

Brecht v. Abrahamson, 507 U.S. 619, 633, 113 S.Ct. 1710, 1719 (1993). In addition, the

state court’s factual determinations must be presumed correct, and the federal court must

accept all factual findings made by the state court unless the petitioner can rebut “the

presumption of correctness by clear and convincing evidence.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254(e)(1);

Purkett v. Elem, 514 U.S. 765, 115 S.Ct. 1769 (1995); Thompson v. Keohane, 516 U.S. 99,

116 S.Ct. 457 (1995); Langford v. Day, 110 F.3d 1380, 1388 (9 Cir. 1997). th

DISCUSSION

Petitioner filed his original petition in this case on October 30, 2006. In that petition,

Petitioner states his grounds for relief as follows:

1) fist fight at program

will I’m late do to the fact that I was not called for appeal at Law Library 

2) Late Due to that I was not called to Law Library

also had attempt murder I got at court 1 year program 5 year probation

13 year LIO got LIO time for fist fight at program

3) got LIO for a fist fight at program sent to by court

got in a fist fight at program.

The court finds that nowhere in his original petition does Petitioner make any claim

that could be construed as a claim that he is being held in custody in violation of the

Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States, as required under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a). 

Accordingly, this original petition does not establish a basis for this court to consider this

Case 1:06-cv-01524-OWW -WMW Document 12 Filed 02/12/07 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 4

petition for writ of habeas corpus.

This case proceeds on the amended petition filed February 7, 2007. In that petition,

Petitioner presents the following grounds:

1) late never called to Law Library

I need an Appeal Done

got into fight with a person at program sent by court I fear for my life when a person

hit me Self defense fight I broke probation got LIO time for fight I got 13 years that

to much time for a fist fight

I need another program

I need another program

get into another program

Again, the court finds that Petitioner makes no claim that he is being held in custody in

violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States, as required under 28

U.S.C. § 2254(a). Accordingly, this court lacks jurisdiction to consider this petition for writ

of habeas corpus.

The court notes that under the “administrative review” section of his petition,

Petitioner states, “ I need my Appeal Done. Fist fight to much time for a fist fight.” Further,

on the final page of his petition, Petitioner asks the court to mail him the paperwork for a

“full appeal.” 

There is no indication in the amended petition that Petitioner has presented his claim

regarding being given “too much time for a fist fight” to any other administrative or judicial

entity. Petitioner is hereby informed that a petitioner who is in state custody and wishes to

collaterally challenge his conviction by a petition for writ of habeas corpus must exhaust state

judicial remedies. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(1). The exhaustion doctrine is based on comity to the

state court and gives the state court the initial opportunity to correct the state's alleged

constitutional deprivations. Coleman v. Thompson, 501 U.S. 722, 731, 111 S.Ct. 2546,

2554-55 (1991); Rose v. Lundy, 455 U.S. 509, 518, 102 S.Ct. 1198, 1203 (1982); Buffalo v.

Sunn, 854 F.2d 1158, 1163 (9 Cir. 1988). th

A petitioner can satisfy the exhaustion requirement by providing the highest state

court with a full and fair opportunity to consider each claim before presenting it to the federal

Case 1:06-cv-01524-OWW -WMW Document 12 Filed 02/12/07 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 5

court. Picard v. Connor, 404 U.S. 270, 276, 92 S.Ct. 509, 512 (1971); Johnson v. Zenon, 88

F.3d 828, 829 (9 Cir. 1996). A federal court will find that the highest state court was given th

a full and fair opportunity to hear a claim if the petitioner has presented the highest state court

with the claim's factual and legal basis. Duncan v. Henry, 513 U.S. 364, 365, 115 S.Ct. 887,

888 (1995) (legal basis); Kenney v. Tamayo-Reyes, 504 U.S. 1, 112 S.Ct. 1715, 1719 (1992)

(factual basis). Additionally, the petitioner must have specifically told the state court that he

was raising a federal constitutional claim. Duncan, 513 U.S. at 365-66, 115 S.Ct. at 888;

Keating v. Hood, 133 F.3d 1240, 1241 (9 Cir.1998). th

The State of California requires the exhaustion of administrative remedies prior to the

filing of a petition for writ of habeas corpus in the state court. See, In re Muszalski, 52

Cal.App.3d 500 (1975). The appeals procedure of the Department of Corrections provides

administrative remedies which must normally be exhausted before habeas corpus relief is

sought from the superior court. Id. at 508. 

Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this petition for writ of

habeas corpus is DISMISSED without prejudice to Petitioner’s right to file a petition based

on a properly exhausted claim that he is being held in custody in violation of the

Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States. The Clerk of the Court is directed to

close this case.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 9, 2007 /s/ Oliver W. Wanger 

emm0d6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-01524-OWW -WMW Document 12 Filed 02/12/07 Page 5 of 5