Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_23-cv-00884/USCOURTS-caed-1_23-cv-00884-0/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

G. MEMO VERA,

Petitioner,

v.

CHRISTIAN PFEIFFER,

1

Respondent.

Case No. 1:23-cv-00884-NODJ-SAB-HC

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION TO 

GRANT RESPONDENT’S MOTION TO 

DISMISS AND DISMISS PETITION 

WITHOUT PREJUDICE

(ECF No. 9)

ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT 

TO SUBSTITUTE CHRISTIAN PFEIFFER 

AS RESPONDENT

I.

BACKGROUND

On June 9, 2023, Petitioner filed the instant petition for writ of habeas corpus challenging 

ongoing Kern County Superior Court criminal proceedings on the following grounds: (1) 

magistrate erroneously decreed Petitioner’s motion to dismiss pursuant to the Sixth Amendment 

was premature, in violation of due process; (2) law enforcement officials conspired to obstruct 

Petitioner’s access to the courtroom and attorneys refused to provide legal assistance; (3) motion 

hearings were scheduled but have never taken place; and (4) Petitioner was committed without 

probable cause. (ECF No. 1 at 4–5.)2

1 Christian Pfeiffer is the Warden of the Kern Valley State Prison, where Petitioner is currently housed. (ECF No. 9 

at 1 n.1.) Accordingly, Christian Pfeiffer is substituted as Respondent in this matter. See Ortiz-Sandoval v. Gomez, 

81 F.3d 891, 894 (9th Cir. 1996).

2 Page numbers refer to the ECF page numbers stamped at the top of the page.

Case 1:23-cv-00884-KES-SAB Document 17 Filed 01/18/24 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

2

On October 3, 2023, Respondent moved to dismiss the petition based on Younger v. 

Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971), and for failure to exhaust state judicial remedies. (ECF No. 9.) On 

December 28, 2023, Petitioner filed an opposition. (ECF No. 15.) On January 11, 2024, 

Respondent filed a reply. (ECF No. 16.)

II.

DISCUSSION

Habeas petitions are subject to an exhaustion requirement—either a judicially-created 

prudential one under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, Dominguez v. Kernan, 906 F.3d 1127, 1135 n.9 (9th Cir. 

2018), or a statutory one under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b). 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 (1991); Rose v. Lundy, 

455 U.S. 509, 518 (1982). A petitioner in state custody 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 court. O’Sullivan v. Boerckel, 526 U.S. 838, 845 (1999); Duncan v. 

Henry, 513 U.S. 364, 365 (1995); Picard v. Connor, 404 U.S. 270, 276 (1971). 

Here, Petitioner has filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus and a petition for immediate 

release in the California Court of Appeal and two petitions for writ of habeas corpus in the Kern 

County Superior Court. (ECF No. 9 at 2 n.2.) On April 7, 2023, Petitioner filed a petition for 

review in the California Supreme Court, but the petition for review was ordered stricken because 

Petitioner was represented by counsel and thus, was “not entitled to submit a petition for review 

on [his] own behalf.” (ECF No. 11-2.) Subsequently, on September 5, 2023, Petitioner filed a 

state petition for writ of habeas corpus in the California Supreme Court. (ECF No. 11-3.)

“The appropriate time to assess whether a prisoner has exhausted his state remedies is 

when the federal habeas petition is filed, not when it comes on for a hearing in the district court 

or court of appeals.” Gatlin v. Madding, 189 F.3d 882, 889 (9th Cir. 1999) (internal quotation 

marks omitted) (quoting Brown v. Maass, 11 F.3d 914, 915 (9th Cir. 1993)). Although Petitioner 

filed a petition for review in the California Supreme Court on April 7, 2023, before he filed the 

instant federal habeas petition in this Court, the petition for review was ordered stricken and 

Case 1:23-cv-00884-KES-SAB Document 17 Filed 01/18/24 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

3

thus, does not constitute fair presentation that would satisfy the exhaustion requirement. See

Roettgen v. Copeland, 33 F.3d 36, 39 (9th Cir. 1994) (“Submitting a new claim to the state’s 

highest court in a procedural context in which its merits will not be considered absent special 

circumstances does not constitute fair presentation.” (citing Castille v. Peoples, 489 U.S. 346, 

351 (1989))). Additionally, Petitioner filing a state habeas petition in the California Supreme 

Court after commencing the instant habeas proceeding in this Court does not satisfy the 

exhaustion requirement because “[t]he appropriate time to assess whether a prisoner has 

exhausted his state remedies is when the federal habeas petition is filed.” Gatlin, 189 F.3d at 889. 

Accordingly, the Court finds that the petition is unexhausted and dismissal is warranted on this 

ground.3

III.

RECOMMENDATION & ORDER

Accordingly, the Court HEREBY RECOMMENDS that:

1. Respondent’s motion to dismiss (ECF No. 9) be GRANTED; and

2. The petition for writ of habeas corpus be DISMISSED without prejudice.

Further, the Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to SUBSTITUTE Christian Pfeiffer as 

Respondent in this matter.

This Findings and Recommendation is submitted to the assigned United States District 

Court Judge, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(B) and Rule 304 of the Local 

Rules of Practice for the United States District Court, Eastern District of California. Within 

THIRTY (30) days after service of the Findings and Recommendation, any party may file 

written objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be 

captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendation.” Replies to the 

objections shall be served and filed within fourteen (14) days after service of the objections. The 

assigned United States District Court Judge will then review the Magistrate Judge’s ruling 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). The parties are advised that failure to file objections within 

3

In light of this conclusion, the Court declines to address whether dismissal is appropriate pursuant to Younger v. 

Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971).

Case 1:23-cv-00884-KES-SAB Document 17 Filed 01/18/24 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

the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Wilkerson v.

Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 839 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th 

Cir. 1991)).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 17, 2024 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:23-cv-00884-KES-SAB Document 17 Filed 01/18/24 Page 4 of 4