Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_07-cv-01576/USCOURTS-cand-5_07-cv-01576-0/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

Order Granting Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss; Denying Petitioner’s Request for Judicial Notice; Directing

Petitioner to File Amended Petition or Request for Stay

P:\pro-se\sj.rmw\hc.07\Harmon576mtdexh 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

L.C. HARMON,

Petitioner,

 vs.

BEN CURRY, Warden, 

Respondent. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C 07-1576 RMW (PR)

ORDER GRANTING

RESPONDENT’S MOTION TO

DISMISS; DENYING

PETITIONER’S REQUEST FOR

JUDICIAL NOTICE;

DIRECTING PETITIONER TO

FILE AMENDED PETITION OR

REQUEST FOR STAY

(Docket Nos. 8, 9)

Petitioner, a California state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed a petition for a writ of

habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging the Board of Prison Terms’ (“Board”)

decision denying him parole. The court ordered respondent to show cause why the petition

should not be granted. Respondent filed a motion to dismiss the petition for petitioner’s failure

to exhaust state remedies. Petitioner filed an opposition. Respondent filed a reply. Having

reviewed the papers, the court GRANTS respondent’s motion to dismiss. Petitioner has also

filed a request for judicial notice which the court DENIES as unnecessary. 

BACKGROUND

Petitioner was sentenced to fifteen years-to-life in state prison after his guilty plea to

second degree murder in Los Angeles Superior Court. Petitioner challenges the Board’s decision

*E-FILED - 8/18/08*

Case 5:07-cv-01576-RMW Document 12 Filed 08/18/08 Page 1 of 5
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

Order Granting Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss; Denying Petitioner’s Request for Judicial Notice; Directing

Petitioner to File Amended Petition or Request for Stay

P:\pro-se\sj.rmw\hc.07\Harmon576mtdexh 2

denying him parole. Petitioner filed a state habeas petition in the superior court and court of

appeal, and a petition for review in the state supreme court. All were denied. The instant

petition was filed on March 20, 2007. 

In the petition, petitioner raises the following claims, which this court found cognizable

in its order to show cause: (1) the Board’s denial of parole violated his plea agreement; and

(2) the Board violated his right to equal protection under the California Constitution and the

Fourteenth Amendment when it failed to consider setting his parole term and failed to fix a

primary term. 

DISCUSSION

A. Motion to Dismiss

Respondent moves to dismiss the petition on the ground it is unexhausted because

petitioner did not fairly present his “equal protection” claim for review to the state courts. 

Petitioner maintains that the claim was exhausted because he presented it to the state’s highest

court. 

Prisoners in state custody who wish to challenge collaterally in federal habeas

proceedings either the fact or length of their confinement are first required to exhaust state

judicial remedies, either on direct appeal or through collateral proceedings, by presenting the

highest state court available with a fair opportunity to rule on the merits of each and every claim

they seek to raise in federal court. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b), (c). The exhaustion-of-stateremedies doctrine reflects a policy of federal-state comity to give the state “the initial

‘opportunity to pass upon and correct alleged violations of its prisoners’ federal rights.’” Picard

v. Connor, 404 U.S. 270, 275 (1971) (citations omitted). The exhaustion requirement is satisfied

only if the federal claim has been “fairly presented” to the state courts. See id.; Peterson v.

Lampert, 319 F.3d 1153, 1155-56 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc). A federal district court must

dismiss a federal habeas petition containing any claim as to which state remedies have not been

exhausted. See Rhines v. Webber, 544 U.S. 269, 273 (2005).

There is no dispute that petitioner presented both of his federal claims to the California

Case 5:07-cv-01576-RMW Document 12 Filed 08/18/08 Page 2 of 5
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

Order Granting Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss; Denying Petitioner’s Request for Judicial Notice; Directing

Petitioner to File Amended Petition or Request for Stay

P:\pro-se\sj.rmw\hc.07\Harmon576mtdexh 3

Supreme Court in his December 18, 2006, petition for review. See Respondent’s Motion to

Dismiss, Exhibit 1. Respondent argues, however, that the petition for review did not fairly

present the equal protection claim to the California Supreme Court because petitioner did not

raise that claim in the habeas petition he filed in the appellate court. See Respondent’s Motion

to Dismiss, Exhibit 2. Petitioner concedes that he raised the claim only in his petition for review,

but argues this constituted fair presentation.

As a general rule, a petitioner satisfies the exhaustion requirement by fairly presenting

the federal claim to the appropriate state courts in the manner required by the state courts,

thereby affording the state courts a meaningful opportunity to consider allegations of legal error. 

Casey v. Moore, 386 F.3d 896, 915-16 (9th Cir. 2004). In Castille v. Peoples, 489 U.S. 346, 351

(1989), the United States Supreme Court held that a claim was not fairly presented where it was

raised for the first time on discretionary review to the state’s highest court and denied without

comment. In so holding, the Supreme Court stated, “[W]here the [federal] claim has been

presented for the first and only time in a procedural context in which its merits will not be

considered unless there are special and important reasons . . . [r]aising the claim in such a

fashion does not . . . constitute fair presentation.” Id. The Ninth Circuit has interpreted Castille

to stand for the proposition that a petitioner does not fairly present a federal claim to the state

courts if he seeks review of the claim for the first time on discretionary appeal. See Casey, 386

F.3d at 917-18.

A review of petitioner’s state habeas petitions in California Superior Court, see

Petitioner’s section 2254 petition, Exhibit A, and in California Court of Appeal, see Petitioner’s

section 2254 petition, Exhibit B, reveals no equal protection claim similar to that raised in his

petition for review to the California Supreme Court, see Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss,

Exhibit 1. The language of Rule 8.500(c)(1) of the California Rules of Court makes clear that a

petition for review to the California Supreme Court is a discretionary appeal. “As a policy

matter, on petition for review the Supreme Court normally will not consider an issue that the

petitioner failed to timely raise in the Court of Appeal.” Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 8.500(c)(1). 

Case 5:07-cv-01576-RMW Document 12 Filed 08/18/08 Page 3 of 5
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

 The court has already found potential for merit in the claim in its September 10, 2007,

order to show cause.

Order Granting Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss; Denying Petitioner’s Request for Judicial Notice; Directing

Petitioner to File Amended Petition or Request for Stay

P:\pro-se\sj.rmw\hc.07\Harmon576mtdexh 4

Here, petitioner raised his equal protection claim only in his petition for review to the California

Supreme Court, and that court denied the petition without comment. Accordingly, under Casey,

this court finds that petitioner did not fairly present his equal protection claim for review to the

state courts.

Having concluded that petitioner did not exhaust his equal protection claim, the court will

GRANT respondent’s motion to dismiss the petition as a “mixed” petition that contains both an

exhausted and unexhausted claim. See Rhines, 544 U.S. at 273. Before entering a judgment of

dismissal, however, the court must provide petitioner an opportunity to amend the mixed petition

by striking his unexhausted claim as an alternative to suffering dismissal. Jefferson v. Budge,

419 F.3d 1013, 1016 (9th Cir. 2005) (citing Rhines, 544 U.S. at 277). As a further alternative,

the court may stay the mixed petition while petitioner returns to state court to exhaust his

unexhausted claim. See Rhines, 544 U.S. at 277. Accordingly, petitioner may choose either to

amend his petition and proceed only with his exhausted claim, or request a stay of the petition

while he exhausts his unexhausted claim in state court. A stay will not be granted, however,

unless petitioner can show there was good cause for his failure to exhaust his equal protection

claim in state court.1 See id. The court will address the merits of the claim following

petitioner’s election below, and resolution of the exhaustion issue.

B. Motion for Judicial Notice 

Petitioner filed a motion for judicial notice and attached exhibits to his motion. The court

will review the attached exhibits and consider all relevant portions along with the merits of the

petition after the briefing is complete. Accordingly, petitioner’s motion for judicial notice

(docket no. 8) is DENIED as unnecessary. 

CONCLUSION 

For the reasons stated above, the Court hereby orders as follows: 

1. Respondent’s motion to dismiss (docket no. 9) is GRANTED.

Case 5:07-cv-01576-RMW Document 12 Filed 08/18/08 Page 4 of 5
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

Order Granting Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss; Denying Petitioner’s Request for Judicial Notice; Directing

Petitioner to File Amended Petition or Request for Stay

P:\pro-se\sj.rmw\hc.07\Harmon576mtdexh 5

2. Petitioner’s motion for judicial notice (docket no. 8) is DENIED as unnecessary.

3. No later than thirty (30) days from the date of this order, petitioner shall either: 

(1) file an amended petition that includes only his exhausted claim and strikes the unexhausted

claim, or (2) file a request for a stay of this matter while he exhausts his unexhausted claim in

state court. 

3. If petitioner chooses to file an amended petition, he must include the caption and civil

case number used in this order, No. C-07-1576 RMW (PR), as well as the words FIRST

AMENDED PETITION on the first page; petitioner shall not incorporate material from the

original petition by reference. 

4. If petitioner fails to file either an amended petition or a request for a stay as ordered

herein, the petition will be dismissed without prejudice to petitioner’s later filing a new petition

that contains only exhausted claims.

This order terminates Docket Nos. 8 and 9. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: _________________________ RONALD M. WHYTE

United States District Judge

8/15/08

Case 5:07-cv-01576-RMW Document 12 Filed 08/18/08 Page 5 of 5