Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_10-cv-00808/USCOURTS-caed-1_10-cv-00808-0/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

U.S. District Court

 E. D. California -1-

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOSE SANCHEZ, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

)

v. )

)

)

PEOPLE OF STATE OF CALIFORNIA, )

)

Respondent. )

________________________________)

1:10-cv-00808 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. The petition raises claims challenging the validity of his guilty

plea before the Superior Court of California, County of Merced on March 17, 2008. (Pet., ECF

No. 1.)

I. 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.

Case 1:10-cv-00808-MJS Document 5 Filed 08/23/10 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-

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

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

Case 1:10-cv-00808-MJS Document 5 Filed 08/23/10 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-

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). 

Upon review of the instant petition for writ of habeas corpus, it appears that Petitioner

has not presented his claims to the California Supreme Court. Accordingly, this Court cannot

determine which, if any, of his claims have been exhausted. If Petitioner has not presented

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

claims. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(1).

It is possible, however, that Petitioner has presented his claims to the California

Supreme Court and 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.

Further, the proof of service attached to the petition indicates Petitioner addressed his

petition to the California Court of Appeals, Fifth District Court of Appeals but used the physical

address for the United States District Court, Eastern District of California, Fresno Division. If

Petitioner intended to file the petition with the California Court of Appeals, it is not likely that

the petition was received by the Court of Appeals.

///

///

Case 1:10-cv-00808-MJS Document 5 Filed 08/23/10 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-

II. ORDER

Accordingly, Petitioner is ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE why the petition should not

be dismissed for Petitioner’s failure to exhaust state remedies. Petitioner is ORDERED to

inform the Court what claims have been presented to the California Supreme Court within

thirty (30) days of the date of service of this order. 

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: August 21, 2010 /s/Michael J. Seng 

ci4d6 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:10-cv-00808-MJS Document 5 Filed 08/23/10 Page 4 of 4