Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-00855/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-00855-7/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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

KENNETH I. EDMONTON, No. CIV S-05-0855-LKK-CMK-P

Petitioner, 

vs. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

STATE OF CALIFORNIA, et al.,

Respondents.

 /

Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this petition for a writ of

habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Pending before the court are: (1) respondents’

motion to dismiss (Doc. 27), filed on March 27, 2006, and opposition thereto; and (2)

petitioner’s motion to enjoin state court proceedings (Doc. 19), filed on January 9, 2006, and

opposition thereto. 

As to petitioner’s motion to enjoin state court proceedings, petitioner seeks an

order from this court staying all state court actions related to petitioner’s commitment as a

sexually violent predator. Because the state court proceedings in question are currently pending,

involve an important state interest, and afford petitioner an opportunity to be heard, this court is

required to abstain. See Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37, 43-54 (1971); see also Middlesex

Case 2:05-cv-00855-LKK -CMK Document 31 Filed 04/25/06 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

2

County Ethics Comm. v. Garden State Bar Ass’n, 457 U.S. 423, 432 (1982). Therefore,

petitioner’s motion should be denied.

As to respondents’ motion to dismiss, respondents argue that the petition contains

unexhausted claims. Respondents assert that an order staying this action pending exhaustion

would not be appropriate and seek an order requiring petitioner to either file an amended petition

raising only exhausted claims or face dismissal of the entire petition without prejudice. See Rose

v. Lundy, 455 U.S. 509, 520 (1982); see also Jones v. Pliler, 269 F.3d 1124 (9th Cir. 2001). 

Respondents contend that the California Supreme Court’s denial of petitioner’s state habeas

petition with citation to In re Swain, 34 Cal. 2d 300, 304 (1949), fails to establish exhaustion.

The exhaustion of available state remedies is a prerequisite to a federal court’s

consideration of claims sought to be presented in habeas corpus proceedings. See Rose v.

Lundy, 455 U.S. 509 (1982); Carothers v. Rhay, 594 F.2d 225 (9th Cir. 1979); 28 U.S.C. §

2254(b). “A petitioner may satisfy the exhaustion requirement in two ways: (1) by providing

the highest state court with an opportunity to rule on the merits of the claim . . .; or (2) by

showing that at the time the petitioner filed the habeas petition in federal court no state remedies

are available to the petitioner and the petitioner has not deliberately by-passed the state

remedies.” Batchelor v. Cupp , 693 F.2d 859, 862 (9th Cir. 1982) (citations omitted). The

exhaustion doctrine is based on a policy of federal and state comity, designed to give state courts

the initial opportunity to correct alleged constitutional deprivations. See Picard v. Connor, 404

U.S. 270, 275 (1971).

 Although the exhaustion doctrine requires only the presentation of each federal

claim to the highest state court, the claims must be presented in a posture that is acceptable under

state procedural rules. See Sweet v. Cupp, 640 F.2d 233 (9th Cir. 1981). Thus, an appeal or

petition for post-conviction relief that is denied by the state courts on procedural grounds, where

other state remedies are still available, does not exhaust the petitioner’s state remedies. See

Pitchess v. Davis, 421 U.S. 482, 488 (1979); Sweet, 640 F.2d at 237-89. An exception to this

Case 2:05-cv-00855-LKK -CMK Document 31 Filed 04/25/06 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

3

rule exists if the federal court finds that the facts have been pled before the highest state court

with as much particularity as is practicable. See Kim v. Villalobos, 799 F.2d 1317, 1320 (9th

Cir. 1986).

In the instant case, the California Supreme Court summarily denied petitioner’s

habeas corpus petition with only a citation to In re Swain, 34 Cal. 2d 300, 304 (1949). The

Swain citation indicates that petitioner did not “allege with particularity the facts upon which he

would have a final judgment overturned.” Id. Under California law, a denial of relief under

Swain is without prejudice to the filing of a new state court petition which meets the

requirements described in the case. See id. Because citation to In re Swain as the basis for

denying a state habeas petition generally indicates that the petitioner has not alleged with

particularity sufficient facts in support of his petition, and is without prejudice to the filing of a

subsequent petition meeting the pleading requirements, such denials do not establish the

exhaustion of available state remedies. See Kim, 799 F.2d at 1319 (citing McQuown v.

McCartney, 795 F.2d 807 (9th Cir. 1986)). 

While the court accepts respondent’s argument that the Swain denial does not

exhaust state court remedies, the court must also consider whether the exception applies. In

particular, the question is whether the facts pled before the state court were as specific as

practicable. Respondents argue that the state habeas petition presented to the California

Supreme Court was not sufficiently specific. The court disagrees. Upon careful review of the

California Supreme Court petition, which is attached to the instant federal petition, the court

finds that petitioner set forth the facts with as much particularity as could be expected from a pro

se habeas petitioner. The court notes that the state petition referenced attached pages which

contain sections entitled “Introduction,” and “Historical Background.” In these sections,

petitioner told his story. With all due respect to the California Supreme Court, this court cannot

see how the petition presented to it could be subject to a Swain denial for lack of specificity. 

/ / /

Case 2:05-cv-00855-LKK -CMK Document 31 Filed 04/25/06 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

4

Based on the foregoing, the undersigned recommends that:

1. Petitioner’s motion to enjoin state court proceedings be denied;

2. Respondents’ motion to dismiss be denied; and

3. Respondents be directed to file an answer to the petition. 

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District

Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within ten days

after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written

objections with the court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge's

Findings and Recommendations.” Failure to file objections within the specified time may waive

the right to appeal the District Court's order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

DATED: April 20, 2006.

______________________________________

CRAIG M. KELLISON

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:05-cv-00855-LKK -CMK Document 31 Filed 04/25/06 Page 4 of 4