Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00847/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00847-4/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

27

28

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

)

JOSE GARCIA, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

)

v. )

)

)

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF )

CALIFORNIA, )

)

)

Respondent. )

___________________________________ )

CV F 06-0847 AWI WMW HC

FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATIONS RE

DISMISSAL OF PETITION FOR

WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

[Doc. 8]

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

corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate

Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 72-302. The case proceeds on

the first amended petition filed February 22, 2007.

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

conviction by 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

Case 1:06-cv-00847-AWI-JMD Document 19 Filed 03/09/07 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

27

28 2

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 (9 Cir. 1996). A federal court will find that the highest state court was given

th

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 (9 Cir.1998). For example, if a petitioner

th

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. A general

appeal to a constitutional guarantee is insufficient to present the "substance" of such a

federal claim to a state court. See, Anderson v. Harless, 459 U.S. 4, 7, 103 S.Ct. 276 (1982)

(Exhaustion requirement not satisfied circumstance that the "due process ramifications" of an

argument might be "self-evident."); Gray v. Netherland, 518 U.S. 152, 162-63, 116 S.Ct.

1074 (1996) (“a claim for relief in habeas corpus must include reference to a specific federal

constitutional guarantee, as well as a statement of the facts which entitle the petitioner to

relief.”).

In 1996, Congress enacted the Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act.

Pub.L. No 104-132, 110 Stat. 1214. Under the AEDPA, exhaustion can be waived by

Respondent. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(C). The Court can also excuse exhaustion if “(I) there is

Case 1:06-cv-00847-AWI-JMD Document 19 Filed 03/09/07 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

27

28 3

an absence of available State corrective process; or (ii) circumstances exist that render such a

process ineffective to protect the rights of the applicant.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(1)(B). In this

case, Respondent has not waived exhaustion. In addition, California provides avenues for

Petitioner to pursue state claims. For example, these claims could have been presented in a

Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus. See, Cal. Penal Code §§ 1473 - 1475. Finally, there are

not sufficient circumstances in this case for the Court to ignore the United States Supreme

Court’s admonishment that comity demands exhaustion and find that California’s corrective

processes are ineffective to protect Petitioner’s rights.

Petitioner states in his amended petition that the claims raised therein were raised in a

habeas corpus proceeding which is still pending before the California Supreme Court. 

The Court must dismiss a petition that contains unexhausted claims, even if it also contains

exhausted claims. Rose, 455 U.S. at 521-22, 102 S.Ct. at 1205; Calderon v. United States

Dist. Court (Gordon), 107 F.3d 756, 760 (9 Cir. 1997) (en banc) cert. denied, 118 S.Ct. 265 th

(1997); Guizar v. Estelle, 843 F.2d 371, 372 (9 Cir.1988). In this case, it appears that none th

of Petitioner’s claims are exhausted.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY recommended that this petition for writ of habeas

corpus be DISMISSED for failure to exhaust state judicial remedies.

These Findings and Recommendation are submitted to the assigned United States

District Court Judge, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. section 636 (b)(1)(B) and Rule

72-304 of the Local Rules of Practice for the United States District Court, Eastern District of

California. Within thirty (30) days after being served with a copy, 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 Recommendation.” Replies to the

objections shall be served and filed within ten (10) court days (plus three days if served by

mail) after service of the objections. The court will then review the Magistrate Judge’s

Case 1:06-cv-00847-AWI-JMD Document 19 Filed 03/09/07 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

27

28 4

ruling pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(C). 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).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 9, 2007 /s/ William M. Wunderlich 

mmkd34 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-00847-AWI-JMD Document 19 Filed 03/09/07 Page 4 of 4