Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_05-cv-01261/USCOURTS-casd-3_05-cv-01261-0/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

27

28

- 1 - 05CV1261

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

TERRY LEWIS HALL,

Petitioner,

CASE NO. 05-CV-1261 W (CAB)

REPORT AND

RECOMMENDATION RE

RESPONDENT’S MOTION TO

DISMISS THE FIRST AMENDED

PETITION FOR WRIT OF

HABEAS CORPUS

[Doc. # 19]

vs.

C.M. HARRISON, et al.,

Respondents.

I. INTRODUCTION

Petitioner Terry Lewis Hall (“Petitioner” or “Hall”), a state prisoner, is proceeding with the

First Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. On August 3, 2006,

Respondent C.M. Harrison (“Respondent” or “Harrison”) filed a Motion to Dismiss the First

Amended Petition. Respondent argues that Petitioner’s claims are not colorable and that Petitioner

has failed to exhaust available state remedies for his first claim. For the reasons below, the

undersigned Magistrate Judge recommends that the motion be DENIED.

II. FACTS

In 2002, Petitioner was convicted of first degree murder and battery on a peace officer. 

Petitioner strangled his wife with an extension cord after he found out she was having an affair. 

While transported to jail, Petitioner slipped his handcuffs off and struggled with a police detective

in an attempt to grab a gun. 

Petitioner was sentenced to a term of 26 years to life. (Lodgment 1, p. 1). On May 27,

Case 3:05-cv-01261-W-CAB Document 30 Filed 01/26/07 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

27

28

- 2 - 05CV1261

2004, the California Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment in an unpublished opinion. 

(Lodgment 1). On or about June 3, 2004, Petitioner filed a petition for rehearing with the

California Court of Appeal. Petitioner argued that (1) the court of appeal failed to address one of

its own published decisions; and (2) the unpublished opinion affirming Petitioner’s conviction

departed from precedent and violated federal guarantees of due process and equal protection. 

(Lodgment 2, pp. 2, 6). On June 14, 2004, the petition was denied. (Lodgment 2). 

On or about June 17, 2004, Petitioner filed a petition for review in the California Supreme

Court. Petitioner claimed that his state and federal rights to due process and equal protection were

violated because (1) the decision of the California Court of Appeal either ignored one of the

court’s previous published cases or was the product of confusion in state law; and (2) the decision

of the court of appeal departed from its published precedent. (Lodgment 3, p. 1). On August 11,

2004, the petition was denied. (Lodgment 3). 

On June 20, 2005, Petitioner filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus in this Court. The

original petition was dismissed without prejudice. The First Amended Petition (“the FAP”) was

filed on July 7, 2005. The petition asserts two grounds for relief. First, Petitioner claims that the

state Court of Appeal violated his federal due process and equal protection rights by failing to

consider its own published precedent. (FAP, p. 6). Second, Petitioner repeats the assertions made

in the first ground, and then contends that the court of appeal violated his federal due process and

equal protection rights by ordering its decision unpublished. (Id., p. 7). 

III. DISCUSSION

A. Petitioner’s Claims Are Colorable

The FAP presents colorable claims. Under 28 U.S.C. § 2254:

The Supreme Court, a Justice thereof, a circuit judge, or a district court 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 only on the ground that he is in custody in violation of the

Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.

28 U.S.C. § 2254(a). Therefore to present a colorable federal constitutional claim, a petitioner

need only allege that he is in custody in violation of federal law. Here, Petitioner claims that he is

in custody in violation of his federal due process and equal protection rights. (FAP, pp. 6-7). 

Case 3:05-cv-01261-W-CAB Document 30 Filed 01/26/07 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

27

28

- 3 - 05CV1261

Therefore the FAP properly presents colorable federal claims.

Respondent’s argument in support of dismissal goes to the merits of the FAP, and not to

whether it is appropriately before this Court. Respondent contends that in order to be entitled to

habeas relief, Petitioner must show that the state court decisions were “contrary to, or involved an

unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court

of the United States” or were based on “‘an unreasonable determination’ of the state court

evidence.” (Resp’t.’s P. & A. in Sup. of Mot. to Dismiss, 5:11-15). Respondent argues that

neither of Petitioner’s claims “could have merit,” because there is no legal authority holding that it

is unconstitutional for a state court to ignore its previously published decision or to issue

unpublished opinions. (Id., p. 5). Although Respondent identifies the correct legal standard for

review of the merits of a habeas petition, such review is inappropriate on a motion to dismiss and

will be conducted after the FAP is answered. 

Based on the above, the motion to dismiss should be denied as to this ground. 

B. Petitioner’s First Claim Is Exhausted

Respondent also argues that Petitioner’s first claim should be dismissed for failure to

exhaust available state remedies. “The exhaustion of available state judicial remedies is ordinarily

a prerequisite to obtaining federal habeas corpus relief.” Johnson v. Zenon, 88 F.3d 828, 829 (9th

Cir. 1996) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)). “A petitioner has satisfied the exhaustion requirement if:

(1) he has ‘fairly presented’ his federal claim to the highest state court with jurisdiction to consider

it, . . . or (2) he demonstrates that no state remedy remains available.” Id. (citations omitted). 

Respondent argues that Petitioner’s first claim is unexhausted because it was never

presented to the California Supreme Court as a federal claim. The Court disagrees. “The state

courts have been given a sufficient opportunity to hear an issue when the petitioner has presented

the state court with the issue’s factual and legal basis.” Weaver v. Thompson, 197 F.3d 359, 364

(9th Cir. 1999) (citations omitted). “[T]he petitioner must have either referenced specific

provisions of the federal constitution or statutes or cited to federal case law.” Lyons v. Crawford,

232 F.3d 666, 670 (9th Cir. 2000), as amended 247 F.3d 904 (9th Cir. 2001). “Presenting the state

courts only with the facts necessary to state a claim for relief” or making a general appeal to a

Case 3:05-cv-01261-W-CAB Document 30 Filed 01/26/07 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

27

28

- 4 - 05CV1261

constitutional guarantee as broad as due process,” however, is insufficient to present the

“substance” of such a claim to a state court. Gray v. Netherland, 518 U.S. 152, 153 (1996)

(citations omitted). 

The heading for the first claim in the petition for review in the California Supreme Court

stated:

The decision of the court of appeal either ignores the Court’s own controlling decision in

violation of the doctrine of stare decisis, or is the product of confusion in the case law, both

of which violate appellant’s federal and state constitutional rights to due process and equal

protection, requiring review by this Court. 

(Lodgment 3, pp. 1, 15). In the body of the argument, Petitioner cited only state authority in

support of his claim. He did, however, identify the federal constitutional rights and the factual

support. Therefore he appears to have sufficiently presented the substance of the federal claims to

the California Supreme Court. 

Respondent also argues that Hall failed to “fairly present” the claim to the state courts by

failing to raise the claim before the California Court of Appeal prior to bringing it before the

highest court. Although Hall’s petition for rehearing before the appellate court argued that the

court failed to address one of its own published decisions, he did not raise a violation of the federal

Constitution with respect to this claim. (Lodgment 2, p. 2). 

“As a matter of policy, on petition for review, the Supreme Court normally will not

consider an issue that the petitioner failed to timely raise in the court of appeal.” Cal. Rules of

Court, Rule 28(c)(1). Further, the Ninth Circuit has held that when a petitioner raises federal

constitutional claims for the first and only time to the state’s highest court on discretionary review,

the claims are not fairly presented. See Casey v. Moore, 386 F.3d 896, 918 (9th Cir. 2004). 

Although Petitioner’s first claim may not have been properly or fairly presented to the

California Supreme Court, the exhaustion requirement is still satisfied because no state remedies

remain available to Petitioner. The exhaustion requirement applies “only to remedies still

available at the time of the federal petition.” Engle v. Isaac, 456 U.S. 107, 125-26 n. 28 (1982);

see also Johnson, 88 F.3d at 829. A petitioner’s claims are exhausted where “a return to state

court for exhaustion would be futile.” Phillips v. Woodford, 267 F.3d 966, 974 (9th Cir. 2001).

Case 3:05-cv-01261-W-CAB Document 30 Filed 01/26/07 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

27

28

1

It appears that if the claim was addressed, it was denied on the merits. A party seeking review

by the Supreme Court must serve and file a petition within 10 days after the decision of the Court of

Appeal becomes final as to that court. Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 8.500 (formerly Rule 28). A Court

of Appeal decision becomes final as to that court 30 days after filing. (Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 8.264

(formerly Rule 24). The court of appeal denied Hall’s petition for rehearing on June 14, 2004, and

Hall filed his petition for review with the Supreme Court on June 17, 2004, three days later.

(Lodgment 2). Therefore the petition was timely. 

2Respondent does not raise the procedural bar issue. This portion of the Report and

Recommendation is limited to the issue of exhaustion. The procedural bar is only addressed as it

relates to exhaustion of state remedies. 

3Petitioner is not required to return to state court to pursue state habeas relief. “Generally ...

a prisoner need exhaust only one avenue of relief in state court before bringing a habeas petition in

federal court. This is true even where alternative avenues of reviewing constitutional issues are still

available in state court.” Turner v. Compoy, 827 F.2d 526, 528 (9th Cir. 1987) (citations omitted). 

- 5 - 05CV1261

“A habeas petitioner who has defaulted his federal claims in state court meets the technical

requirements for exhaustion; there are no state remedies any longer ‘available’ to him.” Cassett v.

Stewart, 406 F.3d 614, 621 n. 5 (9th Cir. 2005) (citation omitted); see also Gray v. Netherland,

518 U.S. 152, 161 (1996) (quoting Castille v. Peoples, 489 U.S. 346, 351 (1989) (the exhaustion

requirement is satisfied if “it is clear that [Petitioner’s] claims are now procedurally barred under

[state] law.”). Therefore a petitioner’s claim may be exhausted even in the absence of fair

presentation to the state courts. See Casey, 386 F.3d at 919. A federal court independently

determines whether a petitioner has state court remedies remaining available to him. See Phillips,

267 F.3d at 974; see also Evans v. Chavis, 126 S.Ct. 846, 852 (2006). 

 The California Supreme Court’s order stated, in full, “Petition for review denied.” 

(Lodgment 3). No legal authority was cited. If the Supreme Court in fact addressed the claim, no

state remedies remain.1 Assuming that Respondent is correct in arguing that the highest court was

precluded from addressing the claim due to Petitioner’s failure to present the claim to the appellate

court, Petitioner’s remedies are exhausted as procedurally barred.2 Therefore this Court does not

find any state remedies available to Petitioner, nor does Respondent identify any.3

Because no state remedies are available for Petitioner’s first claim, the exhaustion

requirement is satisfied. Accordingly, the undersigned Magistrate Judge recommends that

Case 3:05-cv-01261-W-CAB Document 30 Filed 01/26/07 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

27

28

4Respondent also argues that because the first claim is unexhausted, the petition should be

dismissed as mixed or the unexhausted claim should be deleted. The undersigned Magistrate Judge

concludes that the claim is exhausted and neither claim should be dismissed. Assuming that the claim

is not exhausted, it should be noted that Petitioner is willing to have the first claim deleted and to

proceed only on the second claim. (Petr.’s Opp. to Resp’t.’s Mot. to Dismiss, p. 4).

- 6 - 05CV1261

Respondent’s motion to dismiss the first claim as unexhausted be denied.4 

IV. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION

Having reviewed the matter, the undersigned Magistrate Judge recommends that

Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss the First Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus be

DENIED, and that Respondent be ordered to file an Answer to the First Amended Petition. This

Report and Recommendation of the undersigned Magistrate Judge is submitted to the United States

District Judge assigned to this case, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1). 

IT IS ORDERED that no later than February 21, 2007, 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 within 10 days of being served with the objections. 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. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: January 25, 2007

CATHY ANN BENCIVENGO

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:05-cv-01261-W-CAB Document 30 Filed 01/26/07 Page 6 of 6