Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-00668/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-00668-0/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

17-CV-668-DMS-WVG

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

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MORRIS B. GILCHREST,

Petitioner,

v.

WILLIAM GORE, Sheriff,

Respondent.

Case No.: 17-CV-668-DMS-WVG

REPORT AND 

RECOMMENDATION GRANTING 

RESPONDANT’S MOTION TO 

DISMISS FIRST AMENDED 

PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS 

CORPUS

[ECF NO. 13]

I. INTRODUCTION

On August 16, 2017, Petitioner Morris Gilchrest (“Petitioner”), a state prisoner

proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed a First Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas 

Corpus (“FAP”) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, challenging his conviction for possession 

of methamphetamine for sale. (ECF No. 8) On October 16, 2017, Respondent William

Gore filed a Motion to Dismiss the FAP arguing that Petitioner’s claims are not ripe for 

federal review because he has not exhausted his state remedies. (ECF No. 14) Petitioner 

did not file an opposition.

For the reasons discussed below, the court RECOMMENDS the motion be 

GRANTED and the Petition DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

Case 3:17-cv-00668-GPC-WVG Document 18 Filed 05/23/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 4
2

17-CV-668-DMS-WVG

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

II. BACKGROUND

A. State Court Proceedings

On September 22, 2014, Petitioner pled guilty to possession of methamphetamine 

for sale and admitted that he had three prior drug-related convictions and a prison prior. 

(Lod. 2, ECF No. 14-3 at 1.) At an unspecified later date, Petitioner was released from 

custody and placed on probation. (Id.) On January 17, 2017, the state trial court found that 

Petitioner had violated the terms of this probation and sentenced him to prison for a term 

of eight years including three years in custody and five years of mandatory supervision 

(Id.)

On March 2, 2017, Petitioner filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus in San Diego 

County Superior Court claiming ineffective assistance of counsel, “judicial misconduct,” 

and actual innocence. (Id. at 2.) On April 6, 2017, the San Diego County Superior Court 

denied the petition. (Id. at 4.)

On April 12, 2017, Petitioner filed a second Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus in 

San Diego County Superior Court claiming: 1) illegal sentencing and the court’s sentence 

violating the “‘double base term’ sentencing regime;” 2) ineffective assistance of counsel; 

3) California Proposition 57 violated the Fourteenth Amendment’s due process and equal 

protection clauses; and 4) the state court misapplied custody credits. (Lod. 4, ECF No. 14-

5.) On April 25, 2017, the San Diego County Superior Court summarily denied the petition 

as successive. (Id. at 3.)

On April 24, 2017, one day prior to the Superior Court’s ruling on Petitioner’s 

second petition, Petitioner filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus with the Supreme 

Court of California. (Lod. 6, ECF No. 14-6.) On July 12, 2017, the California Supreme 

Court denied the petition, citing In re Swain, 34 Cal.2d 300, 304, 209 P.2d 793 (1949), and 

People v. Duvall, 9 Cal.4th 464, 474, 37 Cal.Rptr.2d 259, 886 P.2d 1252 (1995). (Lod. 6, 

ECF No. 14-7.)

B. Federal Court Proceedings

On March 31, 2017, Petitioner filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus in federal 

Case 3:17-cv-00668-GPC-WVG Document 18 Filed 05/23/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 4
3

17-CV-668-DMS-WVG

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

court. (ECF No. 1.) On April 11, 2017, the first petition was dismissed without prejudice

for failing to name a proper respondent and failing to exhaust state court remedies. (ECF

No. 3.) On July 26, 2017, Petitioner filed his FAP. (ECF No. 8.)

On October 16, 2017, Respondent filed the present Motion to Dismiss First 

Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus. (ECF No. 13.) On November 13, 2017, 

Petitioner filed a motion requesting an extension of time by which to file an opposition. 

(ECF No. 15.) On January 8, 2018, the Court granted Petitioner’s motion, extending the 

deadline of Petitioner’s responsive filing to January 31, 2018. (ECF No. 17.) The deadline 

passed without Petitioner filing a response.

III. LEGAL STANDARD

Federal courts may not grant habeas relief to a person held in state custody unless 

the petitioner has exhausted his state court remedies. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(1)(A); Rose v. 

Lundy, 455 U.S. 509, 518, 102 S.Ct. 1198, 1203, 71 L.Ed.2d 379 (1982). “A petitioner 

must properly exhaust his state remedies by fairly presenting his federal claim in the state 

courts and thereby giving those courts an opportunity to act on his claim.” Peterson v. 

Lampert, 319 F.3d 1153, 1155-56 (9th Cir. 2003). “A state prisoner seeking relief with 

respect to a California conviction is required to fairly present his federal claims to the” 

Supreme Court of California. Pombrio v. Hense, 631 F.Supp2.d 1247, 1250 (C.D. Cal. 

2009). “A claim is not fairly presented if it is raised ‘in a procedural context in which its 

merits will not be considered’ absent special circumstances.” Id. at 1251 (quoting Castille 

v. Peoples, 489 U.S. 346, 351, 109 S.Ct. 1056, 1060, 103 L.Ed.2d 380 (1989).

“[T]he California Supreme Court’s denial of a habeas petition with citations to Swain

and Duvall in conjunction [is], in effect, the grant of a demurrer, i.e., a holding that the 

petitioner has not pled facts with sufficient particularity.” Curiel v. Miller, 830 F.3d 854, 

869 (9th Cir. 2016) (en banc) (quotation omitted). Denials citing Swain and Duvall involve 

correctable defects that may be amended or renewed with the Supreme Court of California.

See Pombrio, 631 F.Supp.2d at 1252-53. Claims that may be amended or renewed have 

not been properly exhausted for federal habeas purposes. Id.

Case 3:17-cv-00668-GPC-WVG Document 18 Filed 05/23/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 4
4

17-CV-668-DMS-WVG

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

The burden of demonstrating that all state claims have been exhausted rests with the 

petitioner. See Kim v. Villalobos, 799 F.2d 1317, 1319-20 (9th Cir. 1986)

IV. DISCUSSION

Petitioner’s petition for was denied by the California Supreme Court with citations 

to Swain and Duvall. Accordingly, those claims have not been properly exhausted for 

federal habeas purposes. Petitioner, in failing to file an opposition to the present motion, 

has not demonstrated all of the claims have otherwise been exhausted.

Thus, the Court finds Petitioner has not exhausted all of his claims with the state 

court. Accordingly, the Court RECOMMENDS the motion to dismiss be GRANTED and 

the Petition DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

V. RECOMMENDATION

For the aforementioned reasons, the Court RECOMMENDS that Respondent’s 

motion to dismiss the FAP be GRANTED and Petitioner’s FAP be DISMISSED

WITHOUT PREJUDICE. This Report and Recommendation of the undersigned 

Magistrate Judge is submitted to the United States District Judge assigned to this case, 

pursuant to the provision of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).

It is ordered that no later than June 28, 2018, any party to this action may file 

written objections with the Court and serve a copy on all parties. The document should be 

captioned “Objections to Report and Recommendation.”

It is further ordered that any reply to the objections shall be filed with the Court 

and served on all parties no later than July 12, 2018. The parties are advised that failure to 

file objections within the specified time may waive the right to raise those objections on 

appeal of the Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

IT IS ORDERED.

Dated: May 23, 2018

Case 3:17-cv-00668-GPC-WVG Document 18 Filed 05/23/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 4