Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-00134/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-00134-0/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 11CV0134

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

WILLIAM H. HEARN,

Petitioner,

v.

GEORGE NEOTTI, Warden,

Respondent.

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Civil No. 11-0134-JLS(WVG)

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION:

GRANTING RESPONDENT’S MOTION

TO DISMISS (DOC . # 7)

DENYING PETITIONER’S MOTION TO

STAY AND ABEY (DOC. # 10)

 I

 PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

On January 21, 2011, Petitioner William H. Hearn (hereafter

“Petitioner”) filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to

28 U.S.C. § 2254 (hereafter “Petition”). Respondent George Neotti

(hereafter “Respondent”) has made a Motion to Dismiss the Petition,

contending that the claims contained in the Petition are unexhausted

because Petitioner failed to present his claims to the California

Supreme Court.

On February 8, 2011, this Court issued a Notice Regarding

Possible Failure to Exhaust and One-Year Statute of Limitations. In

Case 3:11-cv-00134-JLS-WVG Document 12 Filed 07/13/11 Page 1 of 7
 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 11CV0134

that Notice, the Court informed Petitioner that his claims may be

unexhausted in the California courts.

On March 25, 2011, Respondent filed a Motion to Dismiss the

Petition Because The Petition Contains Unexhausted Claims. Respondent’s Motion notifies Petitioner and the Court that none of the

claims presented in the Petition have been exhausted in the

California courts. Petitioner did not file an Opposition to the

Motion to Dismiss.

On June 16, 2011, Petitioner filed a document entitled

“Waiver of Exhaustion Allowing Federal Claim To Be Heard Without

Prior Hearing.” In this document, Petitioner requests that “the

United States District Court dismiss his Petition (sic) without

prejudice of the current federal action and going to state court to

exhaust all unexhausted claims... Petitioner requests (sic) an issue

of Stay and Abeyance... in order that he will not be barred under

the one-year statute of limitations pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254.”

The Court construes the document as a Motion to Stay and Abey the

Petition. On July 12, 2011, Respondent filed an Opposition to the

Motion to Stay and Abey.

The Court, having reviewed the Petition, Motion to Dismiss,

Motion to Stay and Abey and the Opposition to the Motion to Stay and

Abey, HEREBY RECOMMENDS that Respondent’S Motion to Dismiss be

GRANTED and Petitioner’s Motion to Stay and Abey be DENIED.

Case 3:11-cv-00134-JLS-WVG Document 12 Filed 07/13/11 Page 2 of 7
 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/ The Court notes that Petitioner appealed his conviction and sentence

in the California Court of Appeal. (Respondent’s Lodgment No. 1)

Petitioner also filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus in the

San Diego Superior Court (Respondent’s Lodgment No. 5). On September

28, 2009, the Superior Court denied the Petition. (Respondent’s

Lodgment No. 6). Thereafter, Petitioner filed three Petitions for

Writ of Habeas Corpus in the California Court of Appeal.

(Respondent’s Lodgments Nos. 7, 9, 11). The Court of Appeal denied

each of the Petitions for Writ of Habeas Corpus. (Respondent’s

Lodgments Nos. 8, 10, 12). 

2/ The Petition states that Petitioner filed a Petition for Writ of

Habeas Corpus in the California Supreme Court, bearing case numbers

hc 19671 and scd 205388. (Petition at 4). However, these case

numbers refer to Petitions for Writ of Habeas Corpus that Petitioner

filed in the Superior Court. Petitioner also states that the

Petitions bearing these case numbers were denied on September 28,

2009. However, the September 28, 2009 Order is the Superior Court’s

Order Denying Petitioner’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus.

(Respondent’s Lodgment No. 6). Further, Respondent states that he

has performed a search on the California Court of Appeal’s website

and found no record of Petitioner having filed a petition for writ

of habeas corpus in the California Supreme Court. (Respondent’s

Motion to Dismiss at 3, fn. 1)

3 11CV0134

 II

 PETITIONER’S CLAIMS ARE UNEXHAUSTED

A. Petitioner’s Claims

The Petition before the Court states the following claims:

(1)(a) Trial counsel was ineffective because he failed to

properly advise Petitioner to waive a jury trial on the issue of his

prior convictions;

(1)(b) Appellate counsel was ineffective for his failure

argue that Petitioner received ineffective assistance of counsel at

trial;

(2) Petitioner’s due process rights were violated because he

was not adequately advised of the consequences of waiving a jury

trial and admitting more than one prior strike conviction; and 

(3) The trial court abused its discretion when it used his

prior convictions to enhance his sentence.

None of these claims have been presented to the California

Supreme Court. (Respondent’s Lodgment No. 13).1/2/

Case 3:11-cv-00134-JLS-WVG Document 12 Filed 07/13/11 Page 3 of 7
 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 11CV0134

B. Exhaustion

 The Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996

("AEDPA"), 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(1)(A), provides that "[a]n application for a writ of habeas corpus on behalf of a person in custody

pursuant to the judgment of a State court shall not be granted

unless it appears that the applicant has exhausted the remedies

available in the courts of the State." "For reasons of federalism,

28 U.S.C. § 2254 requires federal courts to give the states an

initial opportunity to correct alleged violations of its prisoners'

federal rights." Kellotat v. Cupp, 719 F.2d 1027, 1029 (9th Cir.

1983); see Duncan v. Henry, 513 U.S. 364 (1995). 

The exhaustion requirement is satisfied when the substance of

a petitioner's federal claim has been fairly presented to the

state's highest court. Castille v. Peoples, 489 U.S. 346, 351

(1989); Johnson v. Zenon, 88 F.3d 828, 829 (9th Cir. 1996); Bland v.

California Dep't of Corrections, 20 F.3d 1469, 1473 (9th Cir. 1994),

cert. denied, 513 U.S. 947 (1994), overruled on other grounds in

Schell v. Witek, 218 F.3d 1017 (9th Cir. 2000). A claim has been

fairly presented if the petitioner has described both the operative

facts and the federal legal theory on which the claim is based.

Bland, 20 F.3d at 1473; see Johnson, 88 F.3d at 830.

Exhaustion is satisfied by filing a petition for review

before the California Supreme Court. Roman v. Estelle, 917 F.2d

1505, 1506 (9th Cir. 1990).

Here, it is clear that Petitioner has failed to exhaust his

available state court remedies because he failed to present his

claims to the California Supreme Court. As a result, the Court

RECOMMENDS that Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss be GRANTED and the

Case 3:11-cv-00134-JLS-WVG Document 12 Filed 07/13/11 Page 4 of 7
 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 11CV0134

Petition be dismissed without prejudice to Petitioner’s refiling in

the future a petition which contains only exhausted claims. 

 III

 PETITIONER’S MOTION TO STAY AND ABEY

Petitioner seeks to stay and abey his Petition so that he can

exhaust his claims in the California courts. Respondent opposes

Petitioner’s request because all of the claims in the Petition are

unexhausted.

In Rhines v. Weber, 544 U.S. 269, 125 S.Ct. 1528, 1533

(2005), the U.S. Supreme Court noted that AEDPA changed many aspects

of federal habeas corpus proceedings, including the application of

the one-year statute of limitations for bringing a habeas corpus

petition in federal court, which is set forth in 28 U.S.C. §2244(d).

In Rhines, the Supreme Court recognized petitioners can effectively

be denied the opportunity for collateral review in federal court

“(a)s a result of the interplay between AEDPA’s 1-year statute of

limitations and [Rose v.] Lundy’s dismissal requirement.” Rhines,

125 S.Ct. at 1533-1534. Therefore, the Rhines court held that

federal courts have discretion to stay mixed petitions and to hold

habeas proceedings in abeyance while the petitioner returns to state

court to exhaust all claims. Id. at 1534-1535.

The Rhines court identified “mixed petitions” as those

petitions that contain “some claims that have been exhausted in the

state courts and some that have not (been exhausted in the state

courts.)” Id. at 1531, 1533.

The Rhines court also held that stay and abeyance “should be

available only in limited circumstances.” Id. at 1535. If employed

too often, the procedure could undermine the purposes of AEDPA,

Case 3:11-cv-00134-JLS-WVG Document 12 Filed 07/13/11 Page 5 of 7
 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 11CV0134

namely, to reduce delay and streamline federal habeas corpus

proceedings. Id. at 1535. In this regard, the Supreme Court stated

“it likely would be an abuse of discretion for a district court to

deny a stay and to dismiss a mixed petition if the petitioner had

good cause for his failure to exhaust, his unexhausted claims are

potentially meritorious, and there is no indication that the

petitioner engaged in intentionally dilatory litigation tactics.”

Id. (emphasis added).

A petition that has only unexhausted claims must be dismissed

without prejudice. A petitioner’s motion to stay and abey a petition

that contains only unexhausted claims must be denied. Cervantes v.

Jacquez, 2011 WL 38978 at *1 (E.D. Cal. 2011), citing 28 U.S.C.

§2254(b)(1), and Rhines.

Here, as previously noted, all of the claims in the Petition

are unexhausted. Since the stay and abeyance procedure is only

authorized for petitions that contain exhausted and unexhausted

claims, stay and abeyance of the Petition is not available.

Moreover, even if the stay and abeyance procedure was available,

Petitioner has failed to show good cause for his failure to exhaust,

his unexhausted claims are potentially meritorious, and that he did

not engage in intentionally dilatory litigation tactics. As a

result, the Court RECOMMENDS that Petitioner’s Motion to Stay and

Abey be DENIED.

 IV

CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION

After a review of the record in this matter, the undersigned

Magistrate Judge RECOMMENDS that Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss the

Petition be GRANTED, the Petition be dismissed without prejudice to

Case 3:11-cv-00134-JLS-WVG Document 12 Filed 07/13/11 Page 6 of 7
 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

7 11CV0134

Petitioner’s refiling in the future a petition which contains only

exhausted claims, and that Petitioner’s Motion to Stay and Abey be

DENIED.

This Report and Recommendation of the undersigned Magistrate

Judge is submitted to the United States District Judge assigned to

this case, pursuant to the provision of 28 U.S.C. Section 636(b)(1).

IT IS ORDERED that no later than August 12, 2011, 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

September 2, 2011. 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. Martinez v. Ylst,

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

DATED: July 13, 2011

 Hon. William V. Gallo

 U.S. Magistrate Judge

Case 3:11-cv-00134-JLS-WVG Document 12 Filed 07/13/11 Page 7 of 7