Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-01806/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-01806-1/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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

FERNANDO RIOS,

Petitioner,

v.

STU SHERMAN,

Respondent.

No. 1:12-cv-01806-SKO HC 

ORDER DISMISSING PETITION FOR 

WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

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

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, alleges claims of prosecutorial misconduct and imposition of an 

illegal sentence.1

 Respondent contends that the petition is not fully exhausted and must be denied 

as a mixed petition. Because the Court agrees that the petition has not been fully exhausted, the 

Court must dismiss the petition. 

I. Factual Background

 On August 14, 2009, Petitioner was incarcerated at California State Prison, Corcoran 

(CSP-Corcoran). While on duty at the dining facility, Correctional Officer Ronaldo Gallegos 

observed Petitioner, an inmate cook, at a gate in a fence that separates the dining hall area from a 

recreation yard. Petitioner reached through the gate with his right hand and touched the open 

///

 

1

 Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c)(1), both parties consented, in writing, to the jurisdiction of a United States 

Magistrate Judge to conduct all further proceedings in this case, including the entry of final judgment. 

Case 1:12-cv-01806-SKO Document 19 Filed 03/03/16 Page 1 of 7
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

palm of another inmate, Grant. Grant then closed his hand and put it into his rear pants pocket. 

Grant then removed his open hand from the pocket. 

 Gallegos and Correctional Officer Lee Cahlander then watched Grant walk to a medical 

clinic window about 30 to 40 feet from the gate. Grant made no contact with any other inmate. 

Three or four inmates were in the clinic area, but were not by the window. 

 Gallego and Cahlander detained Grant, and Cahlander searched him. Cahlander found 

two plastic bindles containing a brownish substance in Grant’s back pants pocket. Thomas 

Sneath, a controlled substance analyst, testified that the bindles contained heroin.

II. Procedural Background

 On November 3, 2010, In Kings County Superior Court, a jury convicted Petitioner of 

possession of heroin in CSP-Corcoran (Cal. Penal Code § 4573.6) and transportation of heroin 

(Cal. Health & Safety Code § 11352(a)). On December 8, 2010, the Court sentenced Petitioner to 

an aggregate term of 15 years’ imprisonment. 

 On March 25, 2011, Petitioner filed a direct appeal in which he alleged (1) prosecutorial 

misconduct and (2) illegal sentence enhancement. On December 12, 2011, the California Court 

of Appeal affirmed the judgment, finding the prosecutorial misconduct claim to be procedurally 

defaulted. The Court of Appeal struck an unauthorized sentence enhancement and remanded to 

the superior court for amendment of the abstract of judgment. 

 On January 14, 2012, Petitioner filed a petition for review by the California Supreme 

Court in which he sought review of the prosecutorial misconduct claim and alleged ineffective 

assistance of counsel in the failure to object to the prosecutor’s closing remarks. The California 

Supreme Court summarily denied the petition for review on February 22, 2013.

///

///

Case 1:12-cv-01806-SKO Document 19 Filed 03/03/16 Page 2 of 7
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

III. Standard of Review

 A person in custody as a result of the judgment of a state court may secure relief through a 

petition for habeas corpus if the custody violates the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United 

States. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a); Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362, 375 (2000). On April 24, 1996, 

Congress enacted the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 ("AEDPA"), which 

applies to all petitions for writ of habeas corpus filed thereafter. Lindh v. Murphy, 521 U.S. 320, 

322-23 (1997). Under the statutory terms, the petition in this case is governed by AEDPA's 

provisions because Petitioner filed it after April 24, 1996. 

 Habeas corpus is neither a substitute for a direct appeal nor a device for federal review of 

the merits of a guilty verdict rendered in state court. Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 332 n. 5 

(1979) (Stevens, J., concurring). Habeas corpus relief is intended to address only "extreme 

malfunctions" in state criminal justice proceedings. Id. Under AEDPA, a petitioner can prevail 

only if he can show that the state court's adjudication of his claim: 

(1) resulted in a decision that was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable 

application of, clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of 

the United States; or 

(2) resulted in a decision that was based on an unreasonable determination of the 

facts in light of the evidence presented in the State court proceeding. 

28 U.S.C. § 2254(d); Lockyer v. Andrade, 538 U.S. 63, 70-71 (2003); Williams, 529 

U.S. at 413. 

"By its terms, § 2254(d) bars relitigation of any claim 'adjudicated on the merits' in state 

court, subject only to the exceptions set forth in §§ 2254(d)(1) and (d)(2)." Harrington v. 

Richter, 562 U.S. 86, 98 (2011). 

As a threshold matter, a federal court must first determine what constitutes "clearly 

established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States." Lockyer, 

///

Case 1:12-cv-01806-SKO Document 19 Filed 03/03/16 Page 3 of 7
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

538 U.S. at 71. To do so, the Court must look to the holdings, as opposed to the dicta, of the 

Supreme Court's decisions at the time of the relevant state-court decision. Id. The court must 

then consider whether the state court's decision was "contrary to, or involved an unreasonable 

application of, clearly established Federal law." Id. at 72. The state court need not have cited 

clearly established Supreme Court precedent; it is sufficient that neither the reasoning nor the 

result of the state court contradicts it. Early v. Packer, 537 U.S. 3, 8 (2002). The federal court 

must apply the presumption that state courts know and follow the law. Woodford v. Visciotti, 

537 U.S. 19, 24 (2002). The petitioner has the burden of establishing that the decision of the 

state court is contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, United States Supreme 

Court precedent. Baylor v. Estelle, 94 F.3d 1321, 1325 (9th Cir. 1996). 

 "A federal habeas court may not issue the writ simply because the court concludes in its 

independent judgment that the relevant state-court decision applied clearly established federal 

law erroneously or incorrectly." Lockyer, 538 U.S. at 75-76. "A state court's determination that 

a claim lacks merit precludes federal habeas relief so long as 'fairminded jurists could disagree' 

on the correctness of the state court's decision." Harrington, 562 U.S. at 101 (quoting 

Yarborough v. Alvarado, 541 U.S. 652, 664 (2004)). Thus, the AEDPA standard is difficult to 

satisfy since even a strong case for relief does not demonstrate that the state court's 

determination was unreasonable. Harrington, 562 U.S. at 102. 

IV. Dismissal of Mixed Petition

 Respondent contends that because Petitioner did not present the illegal sentence claim to 

the California Supreme Court, the petition must be denied as a mixed petition. Because 

Petitioner did not file a reply (traverse), he did not address Respondent’s argument. In the 

petition, Petitioner stated only that ground one had been exhausted. Doc. 1 at 12. 

///

Case 1:12-cv-01806-SKO Document 19 Filed 03/03/16 Page 4 of 7
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

5

 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; Keeney v.

Tamayo-Reyes, 504 U.S. 1, 8 (1992). The petitioner must also have specifically informed 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). 

Petitioner has not exhausted ground two of the federal petition, in which he claims 

imposition of an illegal sentence. Because the petition is not fully exhausted, the Court must 

dismiss it. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(1); Rose, 455 U.S. at 521-22. 

V. Certificate of Appealability

 A petitioner seeking a writ of habeas corpus has no absolute entitlement to appeal a 

district court's denial of his petition, but may only appeal in certain circumstances. Miller-El v. 

Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 335-36 (2003). The controlling statute in determining whether to issue a 

certificate of appealability is 28 U.S.C. § 2253, which provides: 

Case 1:12-cv-01806-SKO Document 19 Filed 03/03/16 Page 5 of 7
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

6

(a) In a habeas corpus proceeding or a proceeding under section 2255 

before a district judge, the final order shall be subject to review, on appeal, by 

the court of appeals for the circuit in which the proceeding is held. 

(b) There shall be no right of appeal from a final order in a proceeding 

to test the validity of a warrant to remove to another district or place for 

commitment or trial a person charged with a criminal offense against the 

United States, or to test the validity of such person's detention pending 

removal proceedings. 

(c) (1) Unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of 

appealability, an appeal may not be taken to the court of appeals from— 

 (A) the final order in a habeas corpus proceeding in which the 

detention complained of arises out of process issued by a State court; or 

 (B) the final order in a proceeding under section 2255. 

 (2) A certificate of appealability may issue under paragraph (1) 

only if the applicant has made a substantial showing of the denial of a 

constitutional right. 

 (3) The certificate of appealability under paragraph (1) shall 

indicate which specific issues or issues satisfy the showing required by 

paragraph (2). 

 

If a court denies a habeas petition, the court may only issue a certificate of appealability 

"if jurists of reason could disagree with the district court's resolution of his constitutional claims 

or that jurists could conclude the issues presented are adequate to deserve encouragement to 

proceed further." Miller-El, 537 U.S. at 327; Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). 

Although the petitioner is not required to prove the merits of his case, he must demonstrate 

"something more than the absence of frivolity or the existence of mere good faith on his . . . 

part." Miller-El, 537 U.S. at 338. 

In this case, reasonable jurists would not find the Court's determination that it must 

dismiss the incompletely exhausted petition debatable, wrong, or deserving of encouragement to 

proceed further. Accordingly, the Court declines to issue a certificate of appealability. 

///

Case 1:12-cv-01806-SKO Document 19 Filed 03/03/16 Page 6 of 7
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

7

VI. Conclusion

 The Court hereby DISMISSES the petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 

U.S.C. § 2254. The Court declines to issue a certificate of appealability. The Clerk of Court is 

directed to enter judgment for the Respondent. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: March 2, 2016 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

Case 1:12-cv-01806-SKO Document 19 Filed 03/03/16 Page 7 of 7