Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_01-cv-02262/USCOURTS-caed-2_01-cv-02262-0/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

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

United States District Court

Eastern District of California 

G. Funtanilla,

Petitioner, No. Civ. S 01-2262 MCE PAN P

vs. Findings and Recommendations

Cheryl Pliler, et al.,

Respondents.

-oOoPetitioner, a state prisoner without counsel, seeks a writ

of habeas corpus. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Respondents move to

dismiss upon several grounds, all but one of which the court has

addressed. The court directed supplemental briefing on the

question whether petitioner’s default of state procedures bars

federal review of his claims, specifically whether the rule in In

re Dexter, 25 Cal.3d 921 (1979), is adequate to bar federal 

review of petitioner’s claims. The parties have submitted

supplemental briefs on the question.

Case 2:01-cv-02262-MCE -PAN Document 22 Filed 04/27/05 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

November 29, 1990, petitioner was found guilty of a

disciplinary infraction resulting in forfeiture of 30 days

credit. Petitioner was advised he could file an appeal within 15

days. August 25, 1996, petitioner filed his first administrative

appeal, which was denied as untimely. Petitioner’s appeal to the

director’s level of review was denied. 

September 21, 1998, petitioner filed a habeas petition in

the Superior Court seeking restoration of his credit. The court

denied relief. 

October 28, 1998, petitioner filed a habeas petition in the

appellate court. The court denied relief. 

The California Supreme Court denied petitioner’s habeas

application April 25, 2001, with citations to In re Clark, 5

Cal.4th 750 (Cal. 1993), In re Robbins, 18 Cal.4th 770 (Cal.

1998), and In re Dexter, 25 Cal.3d 921 (1979). Dexter requires

state prisoners to exhaust the available administrative remedies

before seeking habeas corpus relief. 

Respondent contends petitioner’s default of the rule

requiring prisoners to exhaust available administrative remedies

before seeking habeas relief bars federal review. 

Before seeking federal habeas relief, a state prisoner must

fairly present his claims to the highest state court so that 

court has an opportunity to rule on the merits of his federal

claims. Picard v. Connor, 404 U.S. 270, 278 (1971). A

petitioner who defaults a state procedural rule that is

independent of federal law and adequate to support the judgment

Case 2:01-cv-02262-MCE -PAN Document 22 Filed 04/27/05 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

is barred from obtaining federal habeas review of his claims

unless he can show either cause for the default and actual

prejudice as a result of the alleged violation of federal law, or

that failure to consider the claims will result in a fundamental

miscarriage of justice. Coleman v. Thompson, 501 U.S. 722, 750

(1991). A state ground is adequate and independent if the last

state court to which the petitioner presented the claim actually

relied on a state rule that was sufficient to justify the

decision. Valerio v. Crawford, 306 F.3d 742, 773 (9th Cir. 2002)

(en banc), cert denied, 538 U.S. 994 (2003). A state ground is

independent if it is not interwoven with federal law, viz.,

application of the rule is not dependent on an antecedent ruling

of federal law. Park v. California, 202 F.3d 1146, 1152 (9th

Cir. 2000). A state rule is adequate if it is firmly established

and regularly followed by state courts at the time of the

purported default. Lee v. Kemma, 534 U.S. 362, 389 (2002); Hill

v. Roe, 321 F.3d 787, 790 (9th Cir. 2003). Once the state

sufficiently pleads adequacy, the burden shifts to petitioner to

make specific factual allegations demonstrating inadequacy,

including citation to authority demonstrating inconsistent 

application of the rule. Bennett v. Mueller, 322 F.3d 573, 585-

86 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 540 U.S. 938 (2003).

Dexter requires prisoners to exhaust available

administrative remedies before seeking relief from the courts

unless it would be futile so to do. Dexter, 160 Cal.Rptr. at 

Case 2:01-cv-02262-MCE -PAN Document 22 Filed 04/27/05 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

1

 Futility is shown by evidence the agency has declared what its rule

or policy will be in a particular case. Gantner & Mattern Co. v. California

E. Com., 17 Cal.2d 314, 318 (Cal. 1941).

4

121.1 Since Dexter is based solely on state law, the rule is

independent of federal law. See Carter v. Giurbino, 385 F.3d

1194, 1197-98 (9th Cir. 2004) (state rule independent where

“[n]o federal analysis enters into the [rule’s] equation”).

Respondents demonstrate courts have required litigants to

exhaust available state remedies before pursuing judicial

remedies since 1941. See Abelleira v. District Court of Appeal,

17 Cal.2d 280, 292 (Cal. 1941). The rule was firmly established

in August 1996, at the time of petitioner’s purported default. 

The rule has been applied consistently since Abelleria. 

See, e.g., In re Muszalski, 52 Cal.App.3d 500, 503 (Cal. 1975);

In re Thompson, 52 Cal.App.3d 780, 783 (Cal. 1975); In re Serna,

76 Cal.App.3d 1010, 1014 (Cal. 1978); Wright v. State, 19

Cal.Rptr.3d 92, 95-97 (Cal. App. 2004); People v. Mendoza, 187

Cal.App.3d 948, 954-55 (Cal. App. 1986). Petitioner makes no

showing by reference to published or unpublished state court

decisions that the rule is applied inconsistently.

The rule of Dexter is an adequate and independent state

ground that bars this court from reaching the merits of

petitioner’s claims.

Petitioner contends his mental illness and mental

retardation constitute cause for the default. “Cause” is

“something external to the petitioner,” viz., some “objective

factor external to the defense” which impeded efforts to comply

Case 2:01-cv-02262-MCE -PAN Document 22 Filed 04/27/05 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

5

with the state’s procedural rule. Coleman, 501 U.S. at 753;

Murray v. Carrier, 477 U.S. 478, 488 (1986). The standard is not

relaxed for petitioners who lacked counsel’s assistance to

navigate a state’s procedures. Hughes v. Idaho State Bd. of

Corrections, 800 F.2d 905, 907-09 (9th Cir. 1986) (pro se

petitioner’s illiteracy not cause for default of a state’s

procedural rule). A petitioner’s mental illness is not a

circumstance amounting to cause. Tacho v. Martinez, 862 F.2d

1376, 1381 (9th Cir. 1988) (diagnosis as “borderline mental

defective” and reliance upon “incompetent jailhouse lawyers” is

not cause). Petitioner’s mental illness is not cause for his

default of California’s procedures.

This court is barred from reaching the merits of

petitioner’s claims.

For these reasons and those stated in the August 13, 2003,

findings and recommendations, I hereby recommend respondents’

August 30, 2002, motion to dismiss be granted and that this

action be dismissed.

Pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l), these

findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States

District Judge assigned to this case. Objections may be filed

within 20 days after service of these findings and

recommendations. The document should be captioned “Objections to

Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” The district

///

///

Case 2:01-cv-02262-MCE -PAN Document 22 Filed 04/27/05 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

judge may accept, reject, or modify these findings and

recommendations in whole or in part.

Dated: April 26, 2005. 

 /s/ Peter A. Nowinski 

 PETER A. NOWINSKI

 Magistrate Judge

Case 2:01-cv-02262-MCE -PAN Document 22 Filed 04/27/05 Page 6 of 6