Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_19-cv-02191/USCOURTS-casd-3_19-cv-02191-1/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

19cv2191-GPC-MDD

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

THOMAS MICHAEL BENHOFF,

Petitioner, 

v.

STU SHERMAN, Warden,

Respondent. 

Case No.: 19cv2191-GPC-MDD

REPORT AND 

RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED 

STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

RE: MOTION TO DISMISS 

PETITION FOR WRIT OF 

HABEAS CORPUS

[ECF No. 7]

This Report and Recommendation is submitted to United States 

District Judge Gonzalo P. Curiel pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Civil 

Local Rule 72.1(c) of the United States District Court for the Southern 

District of California. 

For the reasons set forth herein, the Court RECOMMENDS

Respondent’s motion to dismiss be DENIED.

I. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

A. Federal Proceedings

On November 14, 2019, Thomas Michael Benhoff (“Petitioner”), a 

California probationer proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, 

Case 3:19-cv-02191-GPC-MDD Document 13 Filed 02/06/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 6
2

19cv2191-GPC-MDD

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

constructively filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 

U.S.C. § 2254.1 (ECF Nos. 1, 3). Petitioner raises four grounds for relief. 

(ECF No. 1 at 6-9). The first through third grounds for relief arise out of 

Petitioner’s lack of access to the jail’s law library, resulting in: (1) denial of 

attorneys of choice; (2) denial of access to the courts; and (3) a First 

Amendment violation. (Id. at 6-8). Petitioner’s fourth ground for relief 

asserts that the trial court errantly imposed an aggravated sentence based on 

facts not found to be true by the jury. (Id. at 9). 

On December 12, 2019, Stu Sherman (“Respondent”) moved to dismiss 

the Petition on the grounds that it is wholly unexhausted. (ECF No. 7-1 

(“MTD”)). On January 17, 2020, Petitioner filed a response in opposition, 

conceding that the Petition is unexhausted but asking the Court stay his 

Petition and hold it in abeyance. (ECF No. 12 (“Oppo.”) at 1).

B. State Proceedings

Petitioner pleaded guilty to two counts of annoying or molesting 

children (Cal. Penal Code § 647.6(a)(1)) and one count of indecent exposure 

(Cal. Penal Code § 314(1)). (Lodgment 1 at 2). Petitioner further admitted to 

the existence of several prior convictions, including felony lewd intent 

touching of a child under fourteen years old (Cal. Penal Code § 288(a)). (Id.). 

Pursuant to California Penal Code § 647.6, Petitioner’s prior conviction was 

used to impose the alternative felony sentencing provision of California Penal 

Code § 647.6(c)(2) due to his status as a repeat offender. (Id.). As such, 

Petitioner was sentenced to 12 years in state prison. (Id. at 2-3).

Petitioner appealed to the California Court of Appeal, arguing that 

 

1 At the time Petitioner filed the instant Petition he was incarcerated. (See ECF No. 1 at 2 

(stating that Petitioner’s release date was November 18, 2019)).

Case 3:19-cv-02191-GPC-MDD Document 13 Filed 02/06/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 6
3

19cv2191-GPC-MDD

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

equal protection principles prohibit the use of his prior conviction to elevate 

his offenses of annoying or molesting children to felony status. (Lodgment 

No. 1). Petitioner filed a Petition for Review with the California Supreme 

Court raising the same issue. (See Lodgment No. 2). The Petition for Review 

was denied without comment. (Id.). 

Petitioner also filed numerous habeas corpus petitions in state court. 

(See Lodgment No. 3). Of relevance to the instant motion, Petitioner filed a 

habeas corpus petition in the California Supreme Court in December 2018, 

arguing that: (1) the trial judge imposed an aggravated sentence based upon 

purported facts that no jury found to be true; and (2) he was denied his 

privately retained attorneys of choice for the entirety of his criminal 

proceedings.

2 (Lodgment No. 4). In support of his second ground for relief, 

Petitioner appended a memorandum identical to a memorandum appended in 

the instant Petition in support of his first three grounds for relief. (See id.; 

see also ECF No. 1 at 13). The appended memorandum argues that his lack 

of access to the jail’s law library resulted in: (1) denial of attorneys of choice; 

(2) denial of access to the courts; and (3) a First Amendment violation. 

(Lodgment No. 4). The California Supreme Court denied the petition on 

January 29, 2020. Cal. Courts, Appellate Courts Case Info., Docket,

https://appellatecases.courtinfo.ca.gov/search/case/dockets.cfm?dist=0&doc_id

=2272158&doc_no=S252859&request_token=NiIwLSEmXkw9WzBZSCJdSE

 

2 Petitioner filed a second habeas corpus petition in the California Supreme Court 

contending he has been unlawfully excluded from early parole. (Lodgment No. 5). This 

petition was denied on January 29, 2020. Cal. Courts, Appellate Courts Case Info., 

Docket,

https://appellatecases.courtinfo.ca.gov/search/case/dockets.cfm?dist=0&doc_id=2279654&d

oc_no=S254286&request_token=NiIwLSEmXkw9WzBZSCJdSENIQEQ0UDxTJiNeTzJSU

CAgCg%3D%3D (last updated Feb. 6, 2020 at 9:54 AM). Petitioner does not raise that 

claim in the instant federal petition. (ECF No. 1).

Case 3:19-cv-02191-GPC-MDD Document 13 Filed 02/06/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 6
4

19cv2191-GPC-MDD

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

JIMEA0UDxTJiI%2BJz9RICAgCg%3D%3D (last updated Feb. 6, 2020 at 

9:54 AM).

II. LEGAL STANDARD

A federal court may not consider a petition for habeas corpus unless the 

petitioner first has presented his claims to the state courts, thereby 

exhausting them. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(1)(A); Rose v. Lundy, 455 U.S. 509, 522 

(1982). The exhaustion requirement is founded on federal-state comity, as 

only when the state court has been presented with the claim may it “pass 

upon and correct alleged violations of its prisoners’ federal rights.” Duncan v. 

Henry, 513 U.S. 364, 365 (1995) (internal quotation marks and citations 

omitted). Exhaustion of a habeas petitioner’s federal claims requires that 

they have been fairly presented in each appropriate state court, including a 

state supreme court with powers of discretionary review. Baldwin v. Reese, 

541 U.S. 27, 29 (2004). In California, this generally entails direct or 

collateral presentation to both the lower courts of appeal and the state 

supreme court, though presentation to the state supreme court alone may 

suffice. Ross v. Craven, 478 F.2d 240, 240-41 (9th Cir. 1973). To exhaust 

one’s claims, the petitioner must also “alert[] [the state] court to the federal 

nature of the claim.” Baldwin, 541 U.S. at 29. A petitioner may do so by 

citing the source of federal law upon which he relies, or by labeling the claim 

as “federal.” Id. at 32. 

III. DISCUSSION

Respondent moved to dismiss on December 12, 2019, based on 

Petitioner’s failure to exhaust his state court remedies. (MTD). At the time 

of the filing of the motion, Respondent was correct. On that date, Petitioner’s 

claims were still pending before the California Supreme Court. (Lodgment 

Nos. 6, 7). Since then, however, Petitioner has exhausted his state court 

Case 3:19-cv-02191-GPC-MDD Document 13 Filed 02/06/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 6
5

19cv2191-GPC-MDD

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

remedies. (See Lodgment No. 4 (raising the same four grounds for relief as 

the instant federal petition)); see also Cal. Courts, Appellate Courts Case 

Info., Docket, 

https://appellatecases.courtinfo.ca.gov/search/case/dockets.cfm?dist=0&doc_id

=2272158&doc_no=S252859&request_token=NiIwLSEmXkw9WzBZSCJdSE

JIMEA0UDxTJiI%2BJz9RICAgCg%3D%3D (last updated Feb. 6, 2020 at 

9:54 AM) (evincing that Petitioner’s December 2018 state habeas corpus 

petition in the California Supreme Court was denied on January 29, 2020). 

Therefore, it appears that Petitioner’s grounds for relief were exhausted on 

January 29, 2020. Additionally, Petitioner requested a stay in his Petition 

and in his opposition to Respondent’s motion to dismiss, although he has not 

filed a formal motion. (ECF No. 1 at 4; Oppo. at 1). Based on the procedural 

posture of this case and because Petitioner requested a stay in the Petition 

and in his opposition, the Court RECOMMENDS Respondent’s motion to 

dismiss be DENIED.

3 Because Petitioner’s claims have since been 

exhausted, the Court also RECOMMENDS that any request for a stay be 

DENIED AS MOOT. 

IV. CONCLUSION

At the time Respondent filed the instant motion to dismiss, Petitioner’s 

state court remedies had not been exhausted. However, Petitioner has since 

exhausted his state court remedies. Therefore, the Court RECOMMENDS

that Respondent’s motion to dismiss be DENIED and that Petitioner’s 

request for a stay be DENIED AS MOOT.

 

3 The Court notes that dismissing the Petition for lack of exhaustion at the time the 

Petition was filed would only result in Petitioner having to immediately re-file his newlyexhausted Petition.

Case 3:19-cv-02191-GPC-MDD Document 13 Filed 02/06/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 5 of 6
6

19cv2191-GPC-MDD

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

IT IS ORDERED that no later than February 28, 2020, 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 March 13, 2020. 

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. 

See Turner v. Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 6, 2020

Case 3:19-cv-02191-GPC-MDD Document 13 Filed 02/06/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 6 of 6