Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_09-cv-00565/USCOURTS-caed-1_09-cv-00565-2/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

U.S. District Court

 E. D. California 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DONAL VANCE WARSINGER, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

)

v. )

)

)

JOHN MARSHALL, Warden, )

)

Respondent. )

____________________________________)

1:09-cv-00565 AWI MJS HC

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THE

PETITION SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED

FOR PETITIONER’S FAILURE TO

EXHAUST STATE REMEDIES

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

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254.

BACKGROUND

Petitioner was sentenced to thirty-eight years to life after being convicted of assault with a

deadly weapon with great bodily injury in the Fresno County Superior Court. (Court Doc. 1, p. 1.) 

Petitioner appealed to the California Court of Appeal, Fifth Appellate District, claiming “6th

and 14th amendment violations.” (Id. at 2.) The conviction was affirmed on June 28, 2006. (Id.)

Petitioner filed a petition for review with the California Supreme Court. It was was denied on

December, 2008. (Id.)

Petitioner filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus in the Fresno County Superior Court

claiming ineffective assistance of counsel. (Id.) The petition was denied on January 3, 2008. (Id. at

3.) Petitioner filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus claiming ineffective assistance of counsel in

the California Court of Appeal, Fifth Appellate District. (Id.) That petition was denied on March 6,

Case 1:09-cv-00565-AWI-MJS Document 15 Filed 05/28/10 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

U.S. District Court

 E. D. California 2

2008. (Id.) Petitioner did not file a petition for writ of habeas corpus in the California Supreme

Court. (Id.)

On March 5, 2009, Petitioner filed the petition for writ of habeas corpus with this Court. 

(Court Doc. 1.) In his federal petition, Petitioner claims ineffective assistance of counsel (Id. at 7.)

and insufficient evidence to sustain the conviction. (Id. at 17.)

DISCUSSION

Rule 4 of the Rules Governing § 2254 Cases requires the Court to make a preliminary review

of each petition for writ of habeas corpus. The Court must dismiss a petition "[i]f it plainly appears

from the petition . . . that the petitioner is not entitled to relief." Rule 4 of the Rules Governing §

2254 Cases; Hendricks v. Vasquez, 908 F.2d 490 (9th Cir.1990). Otherwise, the Court will order

Respondent to respond to the petition. Rule 5 of the Rules Governing § 2254 Cases.

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 (1991); Rose v. Lundy, 455 U.S. 509, 518 (1982); Buffalo v. Sunn, 854 F.2d 1158,

1163 (9th Cir. 1988). 

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 court. Duncan v.

Henry, 513 U.S. 364, 365 (1995); Picard v. Connor, 404 U.S. 270, 276 (1971); Johnson v. Zenon, 88

F.3d 828, 829 (9th Cir. 1996). A federal court will find that the highest state court was given 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, 513 U.S. at 365 (legal basis); Kenney v. Tamayo-Reyes, 504

U.S. 1, 9 (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; Lyons v. Crawford, 232 F.3d 666, 669

(9th Cir.2000), amended, 247 F.3d 904 (2001); Hiivala v. Wood, 195 F.3d 1098, 1106 (9th

Cir.1999); Keating v. Hood, 133 F.3d 1240, 1241 (9th Cir.1998). In Duncan, the United States

Case 1:09-cv-00565-AWI-MJS Document 15 Filed 05/28/10 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

U.S. District Court

 E. D. California 3

Supreme Court reiterated the rule as follows: 

In Picard v. Connor, 404 U.S. 270, 275 . . . (1971), we said that exhaustion 

of state remedies requires that petitioners "fairly present" federal claims to the 

state courts in order to give the State the "'opportunity to pass upon and correct’

alleged violations of the prisoners' federal rights" (some internal quotation marks

omitted). If state courts are to be given the opportunity to correct alleged violations

of prisoners' federal rights, they must surely be alerted to the fact that the prisoners

are asserting claims under the United States Constitution. If a habeas petitioner 

wishes to claim that an evidentiary ruling at a state court trial denied him the due 

process of law guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment, he must say so, not only 

in federal court, but in state court. 

Duncan, 513 U.S. at 365-366. The Ninth Circuit examined the rule further, stating:

Our rule is that a state prisoner has not "fairly presented" (and thus 

exhausted) his federal claims in state court unless he specifically indicated to 

that court that those claims were based on federal law. See Shumway v. Payne, 

223 F.3d 982, 987-88 (9th Cir. 2000). Since the Supreme Court's decision in 

Duncan, this court has held that the petitioner must make the federal basis of the 

claim explicit either by citing federal law or the decisions of federal courts, even

if the federal basis is “self-evident," Gatlin v. Madding, 189 F.3d 882, 889 

(9th Cir. 1999) (citing Anderson v. Harless, 459 U.S. 4, 7 . . . (1982), or the

underlying claim would be decided under state law on the same considerations

that would control resolution of the claim on federal grounds. Hiivala v. Wood, 

195 F3d 1098, 1106-07 (9th Cir. 1999); Johnson v. Zenon, 88 F.3d 828, 830-31 

(9th Cir. 1996); . . . .

In Johnson, we explained that the petitioner must alert the state court to 

the fact that the relevant claim is a federal one without regard to how similar the 

state and federal standards for reviewing the claim may be or how obvious the 

violation of federal law is. 

Lyons v. Crawford, 232 F.3d 666, 668-669 (9th Cir. 2000) (italics added). 

From review of the instant petition for writ of habeas corpus, it appears that Petitioner has not

presented his claims to the California Supreme Court. If Petitioner has not presented all of his

claims to the California Supreme Court, the Court cannot proceed to the merits of those claims. 28

U.S.C. § 2254(b)(1). Petitioner states that he raised “6th and 14th amendment claims” on direct

appeal to the California Supreme Court. That description insufficiently describes what claims the

State Supreme Court reviewed. Petitioner specifies that he raised ineffective assistance of counsel

claims in petitions for writ of habeas corpus to the Fresno County Superior Court and California

Court of Appeal, Fifth Appellate District. However, Petitioner admits that he did not file a petition

with the California Supreme Court. 

It is possible that Petitioner has presented his claims to the California Supreme Court and

Case 1:09-cv-00565-AWI-MJS Document 15 Filed 05/28/10 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

U.S. District Court

 E. D. California 4

simply neglected to inform this Court. Thus, Petitioner must inform the Court if his claims have

been presented to the California Supreme Court, and if possible, provide the Court with a copy of the

petition filed in the California Supreme Court, along with a copy of any ruling made by the

California Supreme Court. Without knowing what claims have been presented to the California

Supreme Court, the Court is unable to proceed to the merits of the petition.

ORDER

1) Petitioner is hereby ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE why the petition should not be

dismissed for Petitioner’s failure to exhaust state remedies. Within thirty (30) days of the date of

service of this order, Petitioner must inform the Court what claims have been presented to the

California Supreme Court. Petitioner is forewarned that failure to follow this order will result in

dismissal of the petition pursuant to Local Rule 110.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 27, 2010 /s/Michael J. Seng 

ci4d6 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:09-cv-00565-AWI-MJS Document 15 Filed 05/28/10 Page 4 of 4