Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_13-cv-05455/USCOURTS-cand-3_13-cv-05455-5/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 

United States District Court 

Northern District of Californi

a

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

TYRONE REED, Sr., 

Petitioner, 

v. 

MARTIN BITER, 

Respondent. 

Case No. 13-cv-5455-TEH 

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO 

DISMISS 

Re: Dkt. Nos. 42, 43 

I 

Petitioner, Tyrone Reed, proceeds with a pro se petition for 

a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The original 

petition presented the following claims: (1) due process violation 

based on trial court’s decision not to admit exculpatory 

evidence; (2) ineffective assistance of trial counsel; (3) due 

process violation based on trial judge’s bias because she took 

the charges against Petitioner personally and because Petitioner 

had filed numerous civil rights complaints against the judge; (4) 

ineffective assistance of counsel appointed on remand to 

represent Petitioner on a motion for a new trial; and (5) due 

process violation based on trial court’s refusal to hold a new 

trial motion or a Marsden hearing based on incompetence of 

counsel. 

Case 3:13-cv-05455-TEH Document 47 Filed 02/03/16 Page 1 of 8
2 

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 

United States District Court 

Northern District of Californi

a

Respondent filed a motion to dismiss because only claim four 

had been exhausted. Petitioner eventually elected to dismiss the 

unexhausted claims, and the petition continued solely on claim 

four. Respondent filed an answer, but, before the Court could 

issue a ruling on the sole claim in the petition, Petitioner 

filed an amended petition (Docket No. 33) and stated that the 

California Supreme Court had recently denied a state habeas 

petition, presumably exhausting the additional claims. 

The amended petition appeared to present the same claims as 

the original petition, though claims one and five as described 

above appeared to have been combined. Wary that Petitioner was 

again bringing a mixed petition, the Court ordered him to provide 

a copy of the petition submitted to the California Supreme Court, 

rather than risk spending many more months being spent on a 

second motion to dismiss for failure to exhaust. 

Petitioner first submitted a filing (Docket No. 38) that was 

a portion of the petition to the California Supreme Court, but 

lacked the exhibits. The petition only presented one claim to 

the California Supreme Court which was that the state superior 

court and state court of appeal were abusing their authority. 

Docket No. 38 at 7. That petition did not present the substance 

of the claims he brings in this federal petition. 

Petitioner next submitted a filing (Docket No. 39) that 

contained the petition to the California Supreme Court and 

exhibits that were presumably filed with the California Supreme 

Court. The exhibits are several hundred pages and contain his 

petition to the California Court of Appeal, briefs from prior 

appeals, transcripts, and many cases. Interspersed throughout 

Case 3:13-cv-05455-TEH Document 47 Filed 02/03/16 Page 2 of 8
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 

United States District Court 

Northern District of Californi

a

the hundreds of pages are the claims Petitioner presents in this 

federal petition. 

Unfortunately, the Court could not ascertain if the claims 

were or were not exhausted1 and ordered Respondent to either 

answer the new claims, or if the claims were unexhausted, 

untimely, or presented another procedural problem, file a motion 

to dismiss. Respondent has filed a motion to dismiss the amended 

petition as unexhausted and procedurally defaulted 

II 

Before he may challenge either the fact or length of his 

confinement in a habeas petition in this court, petitioner must 

present to the California Supreme Court any claims he wishes to 

raise in this court. See Rose v. Lundy, 455 U.S. 509, 522 (1982) 

(holding every claim raised in federal habeas petition must be 

exhausted). The general rule is that a federal district court 

must dismiss a federal habeas petition containing any claim as to 

which state remedies have not been exhausted. Id. 

A federal court will not review questions of federal law 

decided by a state court if the decision also rests on a state 

law ground that is independent of the federal question and 

adequate to support the judgment. Coleman v. Thompson, 501 U.S. 

722, 729-30 (1991). In the context of direct review by the 

United States Supreme Court, the "independent and adequate state 

ground" doctrine goes to jurisdiction; in federal habeas cases, 

 

1 It is not clear if the several hundred pages were provided to the 

California Supreme Court or even if that court was aware of those 

claims as the only claim specifically brought to the California 

Supreme Court was that the lower courts were abusing their 

authority.

Case 3:13-cv-05455-TEH Document 47 Filed 02/03/16 Page 3 of 8
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 

United States District Court 

Northern District of Californi

a

in whatever court, it is a matter of comity and federalism. Id. 

The procedural default rule is a specific instance of the more 

general "adequate and independent state grounds" doctrine. Wells 

v. Maass, 28 F.3d 1005, 1008 (9th Cir. 1994). 

In cases in which a state prisoner has defaulted his federal 

claims in state court pursuant to an independent and adequate 

state procedural rule, federal habeas review of the claims is 

barred unless the prisoner can demonstrate cause for the default 

and actual prejudice as a result of the alleged violation of 

federal law, or demonstrate that failure to consider the claims 

will result in a fundamental miscarriage of justice. Coleman, 

501 U.S. at 750. Where petitioner's claims were not fairly 

presented to the state courts, but an independent and adequate 

state procedural rule exists which bars their review, claims are 

procedurally barred in federal habeas review. Casey v. Moore, 

386 F.3d 896, 919 (9th Cir. 2004) (finding that Washington's 

state procedural rule setting one-year limit on a personal 

restraint petition, which raises a federal claim not raised on 

direct review, precludes federal review of claim that would no 

longer be timely under that rule). 

III 

A 

On September 17, 2014, the Alameda County Superior Court 

denied Petitioner’s habeas petition as successive and an abuse of 

the writ, citing In re Clark, 5 Cal. 4th 750, 767-68, 774, 797 

(1993) and In re Miller, 17 Cal.2d 734, 735 (1941). Docket No. 

39 at 27. 

Case 3:13-cv-05455-TEH Document 47 Filed 02/03/16 Page 4 of 8
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 

United States District Court 

Northern District of Californi

a

On January 6, 2015, Petitioner filed a habeas petition in 

the California Court of Appeal that raised five claims: (1) 

ineffective assistance of trial counsel for failing to 

investigate exculpatory information (Docket No. 39 at 35); (2) 

the trial court violated petitioner’s rights by limiting the 

scope of counsel’s investigation on remand (Brady violation) 

(Docket No. 39 at 36); (3) the trial judge was biased against 

petitioner (Docket No. 39-2 at 8-10); (4) counsel on remand was 

ineffective (Docket No. 39-3 at 36-38); and (5) the prosecutor 

erroneously excused the only black prospective juror on the panel 

(Docket No. 39-4 at 1-6). 

The California Court of Appeal denied the petition, stating: 

The petition for writ of habeas corpus is 

denied. Petitioner does not demonstrate that 

he exhausted his habeas corpus remedy in the 

superior court as to the claims asserted in 

the instant petition. (In re Steele (2004) 

32 Cal. 4th 682, 692; In re Hillery (1962) 

202 Cal. App. 2d 293, 294; People v. Duvall 

(1995) 9 Cal. 4th 464, 474.) Regardless of 

the exhaustion issue, the petition for writ 

of habeas corpus is denied. (In re Clark 

(1993) 5 Cal. 4th 750, 782-799 [all claims]; 

In re Robbins (1998) 18 Cal. 4th 770, 780-781 

[all claims]; In re Waltreus (1965) 62 Cal. 

2d 218, 225 [as to portions of grounds raised 

and rejected on appeal]; In re Dixon (1953) 

41 Cal. 2d 756, 759 [as to grounds or 

portions thereof that could have been raised 

on appeal]; In re Swain (1949) 34 Cal. 2d 

300, 303-304 [all claims].) 

Docket No. 39 at 25. 

On February 13, 2015, Petitioner filed a habeas petition in 

the California Supreme Court that raised one claim asserting that 

the superior court and court of appeal violated his due process 

rights and demonstrated bias by denying his habeas petitions. 

Docket No. 39 at 22. It appears that he attached his petition to 

Case 3:13-cv-05455-TEH Document 47 Filed 02/03/16 Page 5 of 8
6 

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 

United States District Court 

Northern District of Californi

a

the California Court of Appeal as an exhibit to the petition to 

the California Supreme Court. Docket No. 39 at 33. The 

California Court of Appeal petition consisted of approximately 

247 pages. Docket No. 39. Interspersed throughout the hundreds 

of pages were the claims Petitioner presented to the California 

Court of Appeal. The California Supreme Court denied the 

petition without comment or citation. Docket No. 39 at 19. 

B 

 Petitioner repeatedly asserts that all claims were presented 

to the California Supreme Court and therefore were exhausted when 

that court denied the petition. Liberally construing the 

petition and Petitioner’s arguments concerning his presentation 

of claims to the California Supreme Court, and assuming that the 

claims are exhausted, the claims are procedurally defaulted as 

untimely. 

The California Court of Appeal denied all claims and cited 

to In re Clark, 5 Cal. 4th 750, 782-799 (1993) and In re Robbins, 

18 Cal. 4th 770, 780-81 (1998). The California Supreme Court 

denied the petition without comment. In Ylst the Supreme Court 

held that where the last reasoned opinion on a claim expressly 

imposes a procedural bar, it should be presumed that a later 

decision summarily rejecting the claim did not silently disregard 

the bar and consider the merits. See Ylst v. Nunnemaker, 501 

U.S. 797, 801-06 (1991). 

California’s timeliness rule is independent, Bennett v. 

Mueller, 322 F.3d 573, 582-83 (9th Cir. 2003), and adequate, 

Walker v. Martin, 562 U.S. 307, 321 (2011). It thus may be the 

basis for a federal district court to hold that a claim in a 

Case 3:13-cv-05455-TEH Document 47 Filed 02/03/16 Page 6 of 8
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 

United States District Court 

Northern District of Californi

a

federal petition that was rejected for untimeliness in the 

California courts is procedurally defaulted. The Supreme Court 

has noted that “California courts signal that a habeas petition 

is denied as untimely by citing the controlling decisions, i.e., 

Clark and Robbins.” Walker, 562 U.S. at 310; see also Thorson v. 

Palmer, 479 F.3d 643, 645 (9th Cir. 2007) (state court citation 

to Robbins was clear ruling that state petition was untimely). 

Thus, all the claims the Petitioner seeks to add in the 

amended petition are procedurally defaulted and may not continue 

unless Petitioner demonstrates cause and prejudice or a 

fundamental miscarriage of justice. See Coleman, 501 U.S. at 

750. Respondent discussed cause and prejudice in the motion to 

dismiss, but Petitioner has failed to provide any arguments to 

address the issue. The newly added claims in the amended 

petition are dismissed as procedurally defaulted. The action 

continues on the sole claim that has already been fully briefed 

and the Court will look to the merits shortly.2

IV 

For the foregoing reasons and for good cause shown, 

1. Petitioner’s motion to dismiss (Docket No. 43) is 

DENIED. 

2. Respondent’s motion to dismiss (Docket No. 42) is 

GRANTED and the additional claims in the amended petition are 

dismissed. This case proceeds on the sole claim that has already 

 

2 If Petitioner did not properly present his new claims to the 

California Supreme Court then they must be dismissed as 

unexhausted. This would be the second time in this action that 

these same claims have been dismissed as unexhausted and these 

claims were specifically found to be untimely by the California 

Court of Appeal on January 13, 2015. Docket No. 39 at 25. 

Case 3:13-cv-05455-TEH Document 47 Filed 02/03/16 Page 7 of 8
8 

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 

United States District Court 

Northern District of Californi

a

been fully briefed (Docket Nos. 25, 29, 30). 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: 02/02/2016 

________________________ 

THELTON E. HENDERSON 

United States District Judge 

G:\PRO-SE\TEH\HC.13\Reed5455.mtd2.docx

Case 3:13-cv-05455-TEH Document 47 Filed 02/03/16 Page 8 of 8