Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_02-cv-02337/USCOURTS-caed-2_02-cv-02337-4/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

DEREK TATE,

Petitioner, No. CIV S-02-2337 MCE GGH P

vs.

ANTHONY LAMARQUE, 

Respondent. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

 /

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

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. On November 10, 2005, the court recommended that respondent’s

July 14, 2005, motion to dismiss on grounds that some claims were unexhausted and some

claims were barred by the statue of limitations be granted in part and denied in part. 

On November 10, 2005, the court further found that three of petitioner’s claims

were not exhausted but not necessarily barred by the statute of limitations: 1) counsel was

ineffective for failing to investigate the validity of petitioner’s prior convictions; 2) jury

instruction error; and 3) the trial court abused its discretion when it would not permit petitioner

to attend his Marsden hearing. For the following reasons, the court now recommends that these

claims be dismissed because they are not exhausted.

/////

Case 2:02-cv-02337-MCE -GGH Document 67 Filed 01/19/06 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

The exhaustion of state court remedies is a prerequisite to the granting of a

petition for writ of habeas corpus. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(1). If exhaustion is to be waived, it must

be waived explicitly by respondent’s counsel. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(3). A waiver of exhaustion,

thus, may not be implied or inferred. A petitioner satisfies the exhaustion requirement by

providing the highest state court with a full and fair opportunity to consider all claims before

presenting them to the federal court. Picard v. Connor, 404 U.S. 270, 276, 92 S. Ct. 509, 512

(1971); Middleton v. Cupp, 768 F.2d 1083, 1086 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 478 U.S. 1021 (1986). 

The United States Supreme Court has held that a federal district court may not

entertain a petition for habeas corpus unless the petitioner has exhausted state remedies with

respect to each of the claims raised. Rose v. Lundy, 455 U.S. 509, 102 S. Ct. 1198 (1982). 

In Rhines v. Weber, ___ U.S. ___, 125 S. Ct. 1528 (2005) the Supreme Court

recently held that a habeas petition may only be stayed for further exhaustion if the petitioner can

show good cause for his failure to first exhaust his claims in state court. On November 10, 2005,

the court ordered petitioner to show cause for his failure to previously exhaust the three

unexhausted claims set forth above. In this order, the court observed that this action had been

stayed once already so that petitioner could exhaust additional claims. 

In his further briefing filed November 28, 2005, petitioner references a letter he

received from the California Court of Appeal on December 10, 2003. See Exhibit A, Petitioner’s

October 3, 2005, opposition to motion to dismiss. This letter stated, 

This court is in receipt of your letter requesting a copy of your petition for filing in

the Supreme Court. Please be advised that should you file in the Supreme Court, 

they will request your file from this court and we will forward it to them. I am, 

however, enclosing a copy of your petition for your information.

Id.

/////

/////

/////

Case 2:02-cv-02337-MCE -GGH Document 67 Filed 01/19/06 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

Petitioner appears to claim that his habeas petition filed in the California Court of

Appeal raised the three unexhausted claims. Petitioner contends that he believed that these

claims were before the California Supreme Court even though he did not raise them in his

petition addressed to that court, because the California Court of Appeal had forwarded his

appellate petition to the state supreme court.

Attached as exhibit D to petitioner’s opposition to respondent’s motion to dismiss

is a copy of the one habeas corpus petition filed by petitioner in the California Court of Appeal. 

This petition did not raise any of the three unexhausted claims set forth above. Therefore,

petitioner could not have reasonably believed that the California Supreme Court was reviewing

these claims based on its review of the appellate habeas petition.

Petitioner has not shown good cause for his failure to previously exhaust the three

claims discussed above. Accordingly, this action should not be stayed for further exhaustion. 

Rather, these claims should be dismissed because they are not exhausted.

IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that:

1. The following claims be dismissed as unexhausted: 1) counsel was ineffective

for failing to investigate the validity of petitioner’s prior convictions; 2) jury instruction error;

and 3) the trial court abused its discretion when it would not permit petitioner to attend his

Marsden hearing;

2. Petitioner’s request to stay this action to exhaust these claims be denied. 

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 twenty

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

objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned

“Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Any reply to the objections

shall be served and filed within ten days after service of the objections. The parties are advised

/////

Case 2:02-cv-02337-MCE -GGH Document 67 Filed 01/19/06 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

that 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: 1/18/06

/s/ Gregory G. Hollows

 

GREGORY G. HOLLOWS

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

ggh:kj

tat2337.den

Case 2:02-cv-02337-MCE -GGH Document 67 Filed 01/19/06 Page 4 of 4