Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-00044/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-00044-4/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 Only the pagination in the court’s electronic docket is referenced. 1

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MARCELINO CALDERON-SILVA,

Petitioner, No. CIV S-06-0044 GEB GGH P

vs.

STATE OF CALIFORNIA, et al.,

Respondents. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

 /

Introduction

Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, has filed an

application for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. By order, filed on March

10, 2006, petitioner’s original petition was dismissed with leave granted to file an amended

petition, which was filed on April 17, 2006. Petitioner was sentenced to 15 years to life for one

count of second degree murder, with an additional four year consecutive sentence enhancement

for the use of a firearm, for a total term of 19 years to life. Amended Petition (AP), p. 1; Motion 1

to Dismiss (MTD), p. 3, Exhibit (Exh.) A, Abstract of Judgment. Petitioner challenges an April

29, 2003, decision by the Board of Prison Terms, now Board of Parole Hearings, denying him

Case 2:06-cv-00044-GEB-GGH Document 18 Filed 02/14/07 Page 1 of 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

 A petition may be denied on the merits without exhaustion of state court remedies. 28 2

U.S.C. § 2254(b)(2). 

 Respondent concedes that while a complete copy of the superior court petition has not 3

been filed, respondent has requested the entire copy and will make it available to the court should

it be required. 

2

parole. AP, p. 10. Respondent has brought a motion to dismiss, filed on July 26, 2006, for

failure to exhaust state court remedies, to which petitioner has filed an opposition.

Exhaustion Standard

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, 2

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). 

Motion to Dismiss

Respondent contends that petitioner has failed to exhaust his state court remedies

because, although he has received a denial by the state supreme court on his habeas petition

regarding his 2003 parole denial, the petition was defective because he failed to file an amended

petition pursuant to a superior court denial of his petition informing petitioner that because

petitioner had failed to supply the court with a transcript of the April 2003 hearing and a copy of

the written decision, the court had no basis on which to evaluate the Board’s exercise of

discretion. Motion to Dismiss, p. 5, Exh. B & Exh. D, p.2. 

Petitioner filed his petition for writ of habeas corpus in the Orange County

Superior Court, raising claims challenging his underlying conviction as well as one claim

challenging the April 2003 parole denial. MTD, p. 3, Exh. B. In denying the petition as to the 3

parole denial challenge, the court stated, as follows:

Case 2:06-cv-00044-GEB-GGH Document 18 Filed 02/14/07 Page 2 of 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

3

In regards to petitioner’s final claim of error, petitioner has not

supplied the court with a transcript of the April 29, 2003, parole

suitability hearing and a copy of the written decision rendered by

the Board of Prison Terms on the same date. Absent an adequate

record, there is no basis upon which this court can evaluate the

Board of Prison Terms’ exercise of discretion.

In order to establish a prima facie case for relief, a petition for writ

of habeas corpus should both 1) state fully and with particularity

the facts on which relief is sought and 2) include copies of

reasonably available documentary evidence supporting the claim,

including pertinent portions of transcripts, and affidavits or

declarations. “Conclusory allegations made without any

explanation of the basis for the allegations do not warrant relief.” 

(People v. Duvall (1995) 9 Cal.4th 464, 474.) 

Resp. Exh. A, p. 9.

Instead of filing an amended petition in the superior court, as respondent avers

petitioner should have done, petitioner filed a petition in the Fourth District Court of Appeal,

raising the same claims as in the court below. MTD, p. 4, Exh. C. Among his attached exhibits

A - Z to the state appellate court, petitioner did not include a transcript of the Board hearing or

any other documents in support of his challenge to the 2003 parole denial. Id. The petition

received a postcard denial with no citations, which is, as respondent contends, a summary denial,

on July 15, 2004. MTD, p. 4, Exh. C-1, p. 2. 

Thereafter, petitioner filed the same petition to the California Supreme Court that

he had submitted to the state court of appeal, resulting in a postcard denial with no case citations

on October 12, 2005, or, again as respondent characterizes it, a summary denial. MTD, Exh. D,

p. 2. This case now proceeds on petitioner’s filing of April 17, 2006, which excludes the claims

challenging his underlying conviction in the state courts but, as respondent asserts, was otherwise

identical to his state court petitions. MTD, p. 4.

Opposition

Petitioner does not dispute that he failed to file an amended petition in the

superior court; rather, he states that he never saw the portion of the order setting forth the reasons

for the denial. Opposition (Opp.), p. 2. Petitioner includes a copy of the minute order which he

Case 2:06-cv-00044-GEB-GGH Document 18 Filed 02/14/07 Page 3 of 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

4

states, under penalty of perjury, was all the documentation he received from the superior court. 

Opp., Exh. B. The copy of the minute order, indeed, sets forth that the clerk mailed petitioner a

copy of that minute order on April 15, 2004, wherein it is stated that the “order denying habeas

corpus” had been “signed and filed,” but there is no representation that petitioner was sent the

actual three-page order denying the petition. Id. Nor does respondent present any evidence or

make any argument in reply to the contrary.

Petitioner argues that he was denied the opportunity to present his federal claims

to the state court because he was not privy to the substantive portion of the order, and that he first

learned of what was contained in that superior court order upon the filing of respondent’s motion

to dismiss. Opp., p. 3. He notes that the minute order he received does state that the petition was

denied “for the reasons stated in the order denying writ filed 04/15/2004.” Opp., p. 3 & Exh. B. 

Apparently, this did not raise alarm bells for him when no such order was attached to the minute

order.

Petitioner goes on to aver that had he received the order it would have been “very

easy” for him to file an amended petition with the requisite documentary evidence. Opp., p. 3. 

As to respondent’s reference to petitioner’s having failed to file the 2003 hearing transcript or

written decision with the instant petition (MTD, p. 4), petitioner observes that it was respondent,

who was directed, by this court, upon the filing of any answer, to provide the relevant transcripts

and other documents for the issues presented herein. Opp., p. See, Order, filed on May 8, 2006.

Discussion

Petitioner appears to have made a sincere effort to exhaust his state court remedies

fully before filing the instant petition. Unfortunately, through what appears to be very little fault

on his own part, he has simply failed to do so. 

Respondent is correct that subsequent unexplained denials by higher state courts

are deemed to rest on the same grounds as the last reasoned court opinion. Opp., p. 5, citing Ylst

v. Nunnemaker, 501 U.S. 797, 804-05, 11 S. Ct. 2590, 2595 (1991). As both the state appellate

Case 2:06-cv-00044-GEB-GGH Document 18 Filed 02/14/07 Page 4 of 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

5

and the state supreme courts issued postcard denials with no case citations, the record is devoid

of any reasoning beyond that of the superior court which found that it had not been provided with

a record sufficient to evaluate petitioner’s challenge to the Board’s 2003 parole denial, in effect a

claim finding petitioner’s challenge to be procedurally defective. 

Petitioner convincingly contends that had he been aware of the court’s advice of

how to make a prima facie case as to his claim, he would certainly have done so. While such an

argument might be helpful to petitioner should he seek equitable tolling upon a return to federal

court with an exhausted petition, his good intentions do not demonstrate exhaustion of his claims

because even though he has proceeded up through the state supreme court, he has done so, as

noted, with a defective petition, albeit inadvertently. 

To satisfy the exhaustion requirement, a federal claim must be presented to the

appropriate state courts “in the manner required by the state courts, thereby ‘afford[ing] the state

courts a meaningful opportunity to consider allegations of legal error[].’” Casey v. Moore, 386

F.3d 896, 915-16 (9th Cir. 2004)[emphasis added], quoting Vasquez v. Hillery, 474 U.S. 254,

257, 106 S. Ct. 617 (1986). Where a state court advises a petitioner what must be done before a

petition will be reviewed on its merits, such advice must be followed unless the state courts are

arbitrarily finding procedural deficiencies. Kim v. Villalobos, 799 F.2d 1317 (9th Cir. 1986). 

Here, the state courts have never been afforded a full and fair opportunity to reach the merits of

his claims. Picard v. Connor, supra, 404 U.S. at 276, 92 S. Ct. at 512; Middleton v. Cupp, supra,

at 1086. The amended petition must be dismissed for petitioner’s failure to exhaust state court

remedies.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that respondent’s motion to

dismiss for failure to exhaust state court remedies, filed on July 26, 2006, be granted and this

case be closed.

\\\\\

\\\\\

Case 2:06-cv-00044-GEB-GGH Document 18 Filed 02/14/07 Page 5 of 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

6

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

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: 2/13/07

/s/ Gregory G. Hollows

 

GREGORY G. HOLLOWS

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

GGH:009

silv0044.mtd

Case 2:06-cv-00044-GEB-GGH Document 18 Filed 02/14/07 Page 6 of 6