Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_07-cv-01339/USCOURTS-casd-3_07-cv-01339-1/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

07cv1339 H 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CORY LANCELIN SMITH,

 Petitioner,

v.

A. HEDGPETH, Warden, et al.,

 Respondents.

07cv1339 H (PCL)

ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S

REQUEST FOR AN

EVIDENTIARY HEARING

I. INTRODUCTION

On June 6, 2008, Respondents entered a motion to dismiss, (Doc. No. 24), Petitioner’s

amended petition for writ of habeas corpus because it presented two unexhausted claims. Now

before this Court Petitioner requests an evidentiary hearing to determine whether claims

presented in his petition for habeas corpus relief were in fact exhausted. (Doc. No. 28.)

II. BACKGROUND

On July 23, 2007, Petitioner filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus with the Court. In his

petition for habeas relief, Petitioner presented three claims he had evidently exhausted at the

state court level, and one claim that Respondents claim is unexhausted. The allegedly

unexhausted claim the Court construes as two distinct claims: 1) a claim for ineffective

assistance of counsel and 2) a claim that the superior court abused sentencing discretion. (Doc.

No. 1 at 9.) On July 31, 2007, the Court filed an order notifying Petitioner that his petition was

Case 3:07-cv-01339-H-PCL Document 29 Filed 07/01/08 Page 1 of 3
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 07cv1339 H 

subject to dismissal for presenting both exhausted and unexhausted claims; the Court then

presented Petitioner with four options to avoid complete dismissal, including an option to

voluntarily vacate his unexhausted claim. On July 31, 2007, Petitioner filed an amended petition

for writ of habeas corpus excluding the unexhausted claims. (Doc. No. 5.) On November 19,

2007, Petitioner filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the United States Court of Appeals

for the Ninth Circuit bearing the unexhausted claims he abandoned in his petition to the Southern

District of California. (Doc. No. 28 at 13.) Pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure

22(a), the Ninth Circuit transferred Petitioner’s writ to the United States District Court, Eastern

District of California. (Doc. No. 28 at 8.) However, because Petitioner was challenging

convictions in San Diego County, the appropriate court to hear his claim was the United States

District Court, Southern District of California. On February 19, 2008, the petition was

transferred to the Southern District of California. (Doc. No. 28 at 10.) On March 28, 2008,

pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 42, the second petition was consolidated with the

prior petition for a writ of habeas corpus. (Doc. No. 15.) 

In short, Petitioner’s original petition with the allegedly unexhausted claims is back before

the court. Petitioner requests an evidentiary hearing to show that he did in fact exhaust the claims

contained within his habeas petition. (Doc. No. 1 at 1-4.) 

III. ANALYSIS

Petitioner argues that he exhausted his claims when he presented his petition for habeas

relief to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. (See id. at 2-4.) Furthermore, Petitioner contends

that his claims appear unexhausted because Respondents, among other illegal acts, doctored

court documents by altering times, dates, and official stamps. (Id. at 1, 3.) Petitioner continues

that Respondents manipulated court documents and committed mail fraud in order to obtain a

“faulty dismissal” of Petitioner’s habeas corpus petition. (Id.) Petitioner now requests an

evidentiary hearing to substantiate the foregoing claims. 

There is no per se requirement for an evidentiary hearing whenever a petitioner makes out a

claim of cause. Turner v. Calderon, 281 F.3d 851, 890 (9th Cir. 2002) (quoting Babbitt v.

Calderon, 151 F.3d 1170, 1171 (9th Cir. 1998)). Rather, if the record refutes the petitioner's

Case 3:07-cv-01339-H-PCL Document 29 Filed 07/01/08 Page 2 of 3
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 07cv1339 H 

factual allegations, a federal habeas court is not required to hold an evidentiary hearing. Schriro

v. Landrigan, --- U.S. ----, ----, 127 S.Ct. 1933, 1940 (2007); Totten v. Merkle, 137 F.3d 1172,

1175-1176 (9th Cir. 1998). 

Here, Petitioner’s arguments are weak or misguided. First, up to this point, Petitioner has

not objected to the use of the court documents he now decries, nor has he made any previous

claims that documents were falsified or altered. To the contrary, Petitioner has submitted and

relied upon the documents in question in support of his case. (Doc. No. 28.) In determining

whether a claim has been exhausted, Petitioner has the burden of proving claims have been

exhausted by clear and convincing evidence. See 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254. If Petitioner had the

proper documents evincing exhaustion, it was his responsibility to submit them to the court;

Petitioner has taken no such action.

Second, Petitioner argues that he exhausted his claim at the state level; however, the

gravamen of his argument is that he exhausted his claim at the state level by submitting his

petition for habeas relief to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals – a federal court. (Doc. No. 1 at

1-4.) Petitioner’s submission does not satisfy the exhaustion requirement that he must fairly

present all of his federal claims to the the California Supreme Court. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(1)(A);

Rhines v. Weber, 544 U.S. 269, 273-274 (2005); See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(c); O’Sullivan v.

Boerckel, 528 U.S. 838, 845-847 (1999). Therefore, by the Petitioner’s own contentions, the

record directly refutes the Petitioner’s factual allegations that he has exhausted his claims in state

court. Pursuant to established law, an evidentiary hearing is not required. Schriro 127 S.Ct. at

1940; Totten 137 F.3d at 1175-1176. Petitioner’s request is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: July 1, 2008 

Peter C. Lewis

U.S. Magistrate Judge

United States District Court

Case 3:07-cv-01339-H-PCL Document 29 Filed 07/01/08 Page 3 of 3