Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-03348/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-03348-0/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)

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DUAINE DONALD BELGARDE,

Petitioner, 

 v.

Warden SUZIE HUBBARD,

Respondent. /

No. C 07-3348 WHA (PR) 

ORDER FOR PETITIONER TO

SHOW CAUSE WHY CASE

SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED

FOR FAILURE TO EXHAUST;

PARTIAL DISMISSAL

Petitioner, a California prisoner currently incarcerated at the California Medical Facility,

has filed a pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. He has paid

the filing fee. 

Venue is proper because the conviction was obtained in San Mateo County, which is in

this district. See 28 U.S.C. § 2241(d).

STATEMENT

Petitioner pleaded nolo contendere to charges of making terrorist threats, inflicting

injury upon a cohabitant, and dissuading a witness. With sentencing enhancements for a prior

“strike” conviction and a prior serious felony, he was sentenced to prison for eighteen years and

four months. His conviction was affirmed on direct appeal by the California Court of Appeal,

and the California Supreme Court denied review. Petitioner also filed a state habeas petition in

superior court which was denied.

///

Case 3:07-cv-03348-WHA Document 6 Filed 09/13/07 Page 1 of 4
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

DISCUSSION

A. STANDARD OF REVIEW

This court may entertain a petition for 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); Rose

v. Hodges, 423 U.S. 19, 21 (1975). Habeas corpus petitions must meet heightened pleading

requirements. McFarland v. Scott, 512 U.S. 849, 856 (1994). An application for a federal writ

of habeas corpus filed by a prisoner who is in state custody pursuant to a judgment of a state

court must “specify all the grounds for relief which are available to the petitioner ... and shall

set forth in summary form the facts supporting each of the grounds thus specified.” Rule 2(c) of

the Rules Governing § 2254 Cases, 28 U.S.C. foll. § 2254. “‘[N]otice’ pleading is not

sufficient, for the petition is expected to state facts that point to a ‘real possibility of

constitutional error.’” Rule 4 Advisory Committee Notes (quoting Aubut v. Maine, 431 F.2d

688, 689 (1st Cir. 1970). “Habeas petitions which appear on their face to be legally insufficient

are subject to summary dismissal.” Calderon v. United States Dist. Court (Nicolaus), 98 F.3d

1102, 1108 (9th Cir. 1996) (Schroeder, J., concurring). 

B. LEGAL CLAIMS

As grounds for federal habeas relief, petitioner asserts that: (1) his sentence violated due

process as determined in Cunningham v. California, 127 S. Ct. 856, 871 (2007); (2) the

sentencing court’s refusal to strike the prior strike conviction was contrary to the standard

established in the California Supreme Court’s decision in People v. Superior Court (Romero),

13 Cal. 4th 497 (1996); and (3) the sentencing court “ignored” a state law regarding drug

treatment established by Proposition 36. 

The second issue, regarding the application of a California state court decision, Romero,

raises only an issue of state law and thus is not cognizable on federal habeas review. See Brown

v. Mayle, 283 F.3d 1019, 1040 (9th Cir. 2002), overruled on other grounds, 538 U.S. 901

(2003). And the third issue, regarding Proposition 36, also is a matter of state law and thus not

cognizable in this federal proceeding. See Estelle v. McGuire, 502 U.S. 62, 67-68 (1991). Both

Case 3:07-cv-03348-WHA Document 6 Filed 09/13/07 Page 2 of 4
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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 is “unlikely,” rather than “certain,” only because petitioner might have raised the

due process argument without reference to Cunningham. 

2

 In California, the supreme court, intermediate courts of appeal, and superior courts

all have original habeas corpus jurisdiction. See Nino v. Galaza, 183 F.3d 1003, 1006 n.2

(9th Cir. 1999). Although a superior court order denying habeas corpus relief is nonappealable, a state prisoner may file a new habeas corpus petition in the court of appeals. 

See id. If the court of appeals denies relief, the petitioner may seek review in the California

Supreme Court by way of a petition for review, or may instead file an original habeas

petition in the supreme court. See id. at n.3.

3

of these issues will be dismissed.

Petitioner’s remaining issue is that his sentence violated Cunningham, in which the

Supreme Court held that California's determinate sentencing law violates the Sixth Amendment

because it authorizes the judge, not the jury, to find the facts permitting an upper term sentence. 

See Cunningham, 127 S. Ct. at 871. Cunningham was decided in 2007. Petitioner completed

direct review in 2006, he says, so it is very unlikely that he has exhausted this claim by way of

direct review.1 And petitioner alleges in the petition that his only state habeas petition was

denied in 2006, before Cunningham, and does not list his due process sentencing issue as

having been presented there. It therefore seems likely that he has not exhausted the claim.

An application for a federal writ of habeas corpus filed by a prisoner who is in state

custody pursuant to a judgment of a state court may not be granted unless the prisoner has first

exhausted state judicial remedies, either by way of a direct appeal or in collateral proceedings,

by presenting the highest state court available2

 with a fair opportunity to rule on the merits of

each and every issue he or she seeks to raise in federal court. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b),(c);

Granberry v. Greer, 481 U.S. 129, 133-34 (1987). 

Petitioner has the burden of pleading exhaustion in his habeas petition. Cartwright v.

Cupp, 650 F.2d 1103, 1104 (9th Cir. 1981). Petitioner has not met that burden here.

CONCLUSION

1. Petitioner’s second and third issues are DISMISSED.

2. Within thirty days of the date this order is entered, petitioner shall show cause why

this case should not be dismissed for failure to exhaust. If he does not respond, or if he is

unsuccessful in showing cause, the case will be dismissed without prejudice to refiling it after

Case 3:07-cv-03348-WHA Document 6 Filed 09/13/07 Page 3 of 4
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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 That such a dismissal would be without prejudice would not, however, affect the

operation of the statute of limitations. Petitioner is cautioned that petitions filed by prisoners

challenging non-capital state convictions or sentences must be filed within one year of the

latest of the date on which: (1) the judgment became final after the conclusion of direct

review or expiration of the time for seeking direct review; (2) an impediment to filing an

application created by unconstitutional state action was removed, if such action prevented

petitioner from filing; (3) the constitutional right asserted was recognized by the United

States Supreme Court, if the right was newly recognized and made retroactive to cases on

collateral review; or (4) the factual predicate of the claim could have been discovered

through the exercise of due diligence. 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1). Time during which a

properly filed application for collateral review (such as a state habeas petition) is pending is

excluded from the one-year time limit. Id. § 2244(d)(2).

4

exhaustion.3

3. Petitioner is reminded that all communications with the court must be served on

respondent by mailing a copy of the document to respondent’s counsel. Papers intended to be

filed in this case should be addressed to the clerk rather than to the undersigned. Petitioner also

must keep the court informed of any change of address by filing a separate paper with the clerk

headed “Notice of Change of Address,” and comply with any orders of the court within the time

allowed, or ask for an extension of that time. Failure to do so may result in the dismissal of this

action for failure to prosecute pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 13 , 2007. 

WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

G:\PRO-SE\WHA\HC.07\BELGARDE3348.OSC-P.wpd

Case 3:07-cv-03348-WHA Document 6 Filed 09/13/07 Page 4 of 4