Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00483/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00483-2/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

MANUEL HERNANDEZ AQUIRRE,

Petitioner,

v.

M. EVANS, WARDEN,

Respondents.

 /

CV F 05-00483 REC SMS HC

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE 

REGARDING EXHAUSTION

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

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 

Petitioner filed the instant federal petition for writ of habeas corpus on April 6, 2005, in

the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California, Sacramento Division. By

order of April 13, 2005, the action was transferred to the Fresno Division.

In the petition, Petitioner raises the following claims: 1) his sentence of 26 years to life in

prison was cruel and unusual punishment; 2) the “Three Strikes” law violated Petitioner’s due

process and equal protection rights; 3) ineffective assistance of appellate counsel; and 4) the

imposition of the upper term sentence was in violation of his constitutional right to proof beyond

a reasonable doubt.

In reviewing Petitioner’s petition it is not clear what, if any, claims were exhausted in the

California Supreme Court.

A petitioner who is in state custody and wishes to collaterally challenge his conviction by

Case 1:05-cv-00483-REC -SMS Document 9 Filed 04/25/05 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

1A copy of the California Supreme Court’s denial alone is insufficient to demonstrate exhaustion. The

proper documentation to provide would be a copy of the Petition filed in the California Supreme Court that includes

the claim now presented and a file stamp showing that it was indeed filed in that Court. 

2

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, 111 S.Ct. 2546, 2554-55 (1991); Rose v. Lundy, 455 U.S. 509, 518, 102 S.Ct.

1198, 1203 (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. 

Picard v. Connor, 404 U.S. 270, 276, 92 S.Ct. 509, 512 (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 v. Henry, 513 U.S. 364, 365, 115 S.Ct. 887, 888 (1995) (legal

basis); Kenney v. Tamayo-Reyes, 504 U.S. 1, 112 S.Ct. 1715, 1719 (1992) (factual basis).

Additionally, the petitioner must have specifically told the state court that he was raising a

federal constitutional claim. Duncan, 513 U.S. at 365-66, 115 S.Ct. at 888; Keating v. Hood, 133

F.3d 1240, 1241 (9th Cir.1998). For example, if a petitioner wishes to claim that the trial court

violated his due process rights “he must say so, not only in federal court but in state court.” 

Duncan, 513 U.S. at 366, 115 S.Ct. at 888.

Because it is unclear what, if any, claims presented in the instant federal petition for writ

of habeas corpus were exhausted in the state’s highest court, Petitioner will be ordered to show

cause regarding exhaustion. If possible, Petitioner should present to the Court documentary

evidence that the claims were indeed presented to the California Supreme Court.1

Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Within thirty (30) days from the date of service of this order, Petitioner shall show

cause as to what claims, if any, were presented to the state’s highest court.

2. Failure to comply with this order may result in the action be dismissed for failure

Case 1:05-cv-00483-REC -SMS Document 9 Filed 04/25/05 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

to comply with a court order. Local Rule 11-110. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 25, 2005 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder 

icido3 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-00483-REC -SMS Document 9 Filed 04/25/05 Page 3 of 3