Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-00669/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-00669-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 540
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Mandamus and Other
Cause of Action: 28:1651 Petition for Writ of Mandamus

---

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 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

CALVIN S. LYNN, 

Petitioner, 

v. 

SHERRI GRECCO, 

Respondent. 

No. 2:15-cv-00669-WBS-GGH 

ORDER AND 

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 

Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Presently pending before the court is petitioner’s multiple 

responses to the court’s order to show cause. ECF Nos. 14–18.1

 The court issued an order to show cause why petitioner’s writ of habeas corpus should not 

be dismissed on April 27, 2015. ECF No. 13. In its order, the court explained that the petition 

did not include facts showing petitioner exhausted his state court remedies, and that without those 

facts his petition must be dismissed. Id. Petitioner filed his first response to the court’s order to 

show cause on May 19, 2015. ECF No. 14. Petitioner then filed four other responses in the span 

of thirty (30) days.2 ECF Nos. 15–18. 

 

1

 The court will refer to all of petitioner’s responses interchangeably because (1) they differ from 

one another very little, and (2) none of them sufficiently address the court’s order to show cause. 

2

 On June 19, 2015, petitioner also filed a letter that seems to ask whether Lynn v. Sacramento 

Superior Court, Case No. 5:15-cv-01328-LHK (N.D. Cal. Mar. 23, 2015) was successfully 

Case 2:15-cv-00669-WBS-GGH Document 20 Filed 07/02/15 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 

2

As the court explained in its order to show cause, 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, 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 (1971); Middleton v. Cupp, 768 F.2d 1083, 1086 (9th Cir. 1985). 

It is not enough that all the facts necessary to support the federal claim were before the 

state courts, Picard, 404 U.S. at 277, or that a somewhat similar state-law claim was made. See 

Duncan v. Henry, 513 U.S. 364, 366 (1995). The habeas petitioner must have “fairly presented” 

to the state courts the “substance” of his federal habeas corpus claim. Picard, 404 U.S. at 275, 

277-278; see also Rose v. Lundy, 455 U.S. 509, 520 (1982). Petitioner has the burden of proving 

exhaustion of state court remedies and in California a petitioner must present his claims to the 

California Supreme Court. Cartwright v. Cupp, 650 F.2d 1103, 1104 (9th Cir. 1981); Kim v. 

Villalobos, 799 F.2d 1317, 1319 (9th Cir. 1986). 

The petition claims that the district attorney and public defender colluded with one 

another to conceal and fabricate evidence. ECF No. 1 at 1. However, the petition does not state 

that petitioner raised these claims in state court. What’s more, petitioner’s responses do not 

actually address the issue and most of the documents attached thereto relate to his trial court case. 

For example, petitioner attaches requests filed in Sacramento Superior Court that the DNA 

evidence in his case be re-examined, as well as court orders denying his requests for failure to 

comply with the service requirements of California Penal Code § 1405(d). ECF No. 15–18 at 6–

10, 30–31, 34–35, 50. The only appellate documents petitioner includes with his responses are 

(1) a “Request for Augmentation of Record on Appeal,” which does not include any mention of 

misconduct by the prosecutor or defense counsel, and (2) a motion seeking substitute counsel 

 

transferred to this court. ECF No. 19. Lynn v. Sacramento Superior Court is, actually, this case. 

See ECF No. 1 (noting that this case was transferred from the Northern District of California on 

March 25, 2015). 

Case 2:15-cv-00669-WBS-GGH Document 20 Filed 07/02/15 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

(also known as a Marsden Motion).3 Id. at 19–27. In addition, an investigation of the filings in 

petitioner’s appellate cases reveals that he did not, in fact, raise any claims concerning 

misconduct by the prosecutor or defense counsel. See ECF No. 13 at 2. In light of the fact that 

petitioner has not stated facts showing he has exhausted his state court remedies the court will 

recommend that his petition be dismissed without prejudice. 

In accordance with the foregoing, THE COURT HEREBY ORDERS that: 

1. The April 27, 2015, order to show cause, ECF No. 13, is discharged; and 

2. The Clerk of the Court is directed to serve a copy of these findings and 

recommendations together with a copy of petitioner’s responses on the Attorney 

General of the State of California. 

THE COURT FURTHER RECOMMENDS that: 

1. Petitioner’s writ of habeas corpus, ECF No. 1, be DISMISSED without prejudice; and 

2. The Clerk of Court be directed to close this action. 

 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 fourteen 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 seven days after service of the objections. The parties are advised 

that failure to file objections within the specified time waives the right to appeal the District 

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

Dated: July 2, 2015 

 /s/ Gregory G. Hollows 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

GGH;017/lynn669.dism 

 

3

 Petitioner’s Marsden Motion does claim defense counsel manufactured evidence and colluded 

with the district attorney. ECF No. 15–18 at 26–28. However, petitioner made these claims 

solely in the context of his Marsden Motion; there is no indication that petitioner ever asserted 

them in order to attack his conviction. 

Case 2:15-cv-00669-WBS-GGH Document 20 Filed 07/02/15 Page 3 of 3