Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-00629/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-00629-3/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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GARY EASLEY,

Petitioner, No. CIV S-07-0629 WBS GGH P

vs.

STATE OF CALIFORNIA, et al., 

Respondents. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

 /

I. Introduction

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

to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. On July 5, 2005, petitioner pled no contest to violation of Cal. Health &

Safety Code § 11377(a), unauthorized possession of a controlled substance. Respondent’s

Lodged Document 1. Petitioner was placed on three years of deferred entry of judgment. Id.

Petitioner violated the terms and conditions of the deferred judgment by not enrolling in

counseling within thirty days of July 5, 2005. Id., lodged doc. # 2. On June 5, 2006, petitioner

was reinstated on deferred entry of judgment. Id., lodged doc. # 3. 

Respondent moves to dismiss on grounds that petitioner’s claims are not

exhausted. For the following reasons, the court recommends that this action be dismissed for

lack of jurisdiction or, in the alternative, on grounds that the claims are unexhausted.

Case 2:07-cv-00629-WBS-GGH Document 22 Filed 03/24/08 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

2

II. Jurisdiction

In footnote 1 of the motion to dismiss, respondent suggests that the court may not

have jurisdiction because there is no final judgment. It is unclear why respondent did not move

to dismiss on this ground. In any event, the court is obligated to sua sponte consider the question

of jurisdiction. Justices of Boston Mun. Court v. Lydon, 466 U.S. 294, 300-02, 104 S.Ct. 1805,

1809-1810 (1984).

This action was brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a) which provides, in

relevant part, that district courts shall entertain an application for a writ of habeas corpus in

behalf of a person in custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court on grounds that he is in

custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States. Because no

judgment was entered by a state court in this action, the court lacks jurisdiction pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 2254.

In Caldwell v. Dretke, 429 F.3d 521 (5th Cir. 2006), the Fifth Circuit found that it

had jurisdiction to consider habeas corpus petitions brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254

challenging orders of deferred adjudication. The Fifth Circuit found that orders of deferred

adjudication were “final judgments” under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 

“In essence, a deferred adjudication probation order places a defendant on

probation while postponing any adjudication of guilt.” Caldwell v. Dretke, 429 F.3d 521 (5th

Cir. 2006), cert. denied, Caldwell v. Quarterman, 127 S.Ct. 431 (2006) (statement of Justice

Stevens respecting the denial of the petition for writ of certiorari). “If the defendant successfully

completes the term of his probation, the charges against him are dismissed, [citation omitted]; if

he violates those terms, he is found guilty and sentenced[.]” Id.

In Caldwell, the Fifth Circuit found that although an order of deferred

adjudication was not a judgment under Texas law, it was a judgment under federal law. 429 F.3d

at 527.

/////

Case 2:07-cv-00629-WBS-GGH Document 22 Filed 03/24/08 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

The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure explicitly state that they are applicable to

habeas corpus proceedings. Fed. R. Civ. P. 81. [Footnote omitted.] In addition,

the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases, Rule 11, state that “[t]he Federal Rules

of Civil Procedure, to the extent that they are not inconsistent with any statutory

provisions or these rules, may be applied to a proceeding under these rules.” The

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure define “judgment” as including “a decree or any

order from which an appeal lies.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 54; see also Black’s Law

Dictionary (8th ed. 2004)(“The term judgment includes an equitable decree and

any order from which an appeal lies.”).

An appeal lies from both an order of deferred adjudication and an order of straight

probation. 

429 F.3d at 529.

Under California law, a deferred entry of judgment is not a final, appealable

judgment. People v. Mazurette, 24 Cal.4th 789, 794 (2001). Because a deferred entry of

judgment cannot be appealed, it is not a judgment under the rules cited by the Fifth Circuit in

Caldwell.

In footnote one of the motion to dismiss, respondent suggests that the court may

have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Section 2241 confers jurisdiction on a district

court to issue a writ of habeas corpus when a federal or state prisoner establishes that he “is in

custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. §

2241(a) and (c)(3). “[T]he general grant of habeas authority in § 2241 is available for challenges

by a state prisoner who is not in custody pursuant to a state court judgment–for example, a

defendant in pre-trial detention or awaiting extradition.” Stow v. Murashige, 389 F.3d 880, 886

(9th Cir. 2004). 

In the instant case, petitioner is not in pre-trial detention, nor is he awaiting

extradition. This court’s research has discovered no case finding jurisdiction pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 2241 in a habeas action brought by a person following a deferred entry of judgment or

similar proceeding. A person challenging a deferred entry of judgment is not “in custody” as is a

defendant in pre-trial detention or awaiting extradition. In the instant case, the charges against

petitioner will soon be dismissed so long as he meets the conditions of his plea. For these

Case 2:07-cv-00629-WBS-GGH Document 22 Filed 03/24/08 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

reasons, the court finds that it does not have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. 

For the reasons discussed above, the court recommends that this action be

dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

III. Exhaustion

In the alternative, were the court to have jurisdiction under either § 2241 or §

2254, this action should be dismissed based on petitioner’s failure to exhaust state court

remedies.

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, 92 S. Ct. 509, 512

(1971); Middleton v. Cupp, 768 F.2d 1083, 1086 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 478 U.S. 1021 (1986). 

Although there is no exhaustion requirement for a petition brought pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 2241(c)(3), principles of federalism and comity require that the court abstain until all

state criminal proceedings are completed and the petitioner exhausts available judicial remedies,

unless special circumstances warranting federal intervention prior to a state criminal trial can be

found. See Carden v. Montana, 626 F.2d 82, 83-84 n. 1 (9th Cir. 1980).

In the instant case, petitioner filed a notice of appeal with the California Court of

Appeal on July 18, 2006. Respondent’s Lodged Document no. 4. On October 26, 2006, the

California Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal because petitioner failed to file an opening brief. 

Id.

Petitioner filed a petition for review with the California Supreme Court. On

December 22, 2006, the California Supreme Court denied petitioner’s application for relief from

\\\\\

Case 2:07-cv-00629-WBS-GGH Document 22 Filed 03/24/08 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

 The court cannot locate respondent’s lodged document five, which is the docket from 1

the California Supreme Court containing this notation. However, respondent’s lodged document

four, the docket from the California Court of Appeal, contains this information as well. 

5

default for filing a late petition for review. Id. The petition for review was returned to 1

petitioner.

Petitioner went on to file four habeas corpus petitions in the El Dorado County

Superior Court. Respondent’s Lodged Documents nos. 6-13. Petitioner filed no habeas corpus

petitions in the California Supreme Court.

If a habeas litigant fails to present his claims to the state court in a procedural

context in which the merits of the claims could have been considered, the claims have not been

fairly presented to the state courts and are not eligible for federal habeas corpus review. Castille

v. Peoples, 489 U.S. 346, 351, 109 S.Ct. 1056, 1060 (1989).

As discussed above, a deferred entry of judgment is not appealable. People v.

Mazurette, 24 Cal.4th 789, 794 (2001). Therefore, to exhaust his claims, petitioner must have

presented them to the California Supreme Court in a petition for habeas corpus. Petitioner did

not present his claims in the procedural context in which their merits could be considered by

presenting them in a petition for review.

In addition, the California Supreme Court did not consider the claims raised in the

petition for review because they were not timely filed. Therefore, even assuming petitioner could

have presented his claims on direct appeal, by failing to file a timely petition for review, he also

failed to present them in a procedural context in which their merits could be considered.

Accordingly, assuming the court has jurisdiction under either § 2254 or § 2241 to

consider the merits of petitioner’s claims, this action should be dismissed because the claims are

not exhausted.

\\\\\

\\\\\

Case 2:07-cv-00629-WBS-GGH Document 22 Filed 03/24/08 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

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that:

1. This action be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction;

2. In the alternative, this action be dismissed because the claims raised are not

exhausted and respondent’s September 10, 2007, motion to dismiss be granted. 

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: 03/24/08

/s/ Gregory G. Hollows

 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

eas629.157

Case 2:07-cv-00629-WBS-GGH Document 22 Filed 03/24/08 Page 6 of 6