Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-05384/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-05384-2/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

KEVIN O’NEAL CRAIG,

Petitioner, No. 03-CV-5384 ALA HC

vs.

A.K. SCRIBNER, Warden, ORDER

Respondent.

 /

Petitioner is proceeding pro se with an application for writ of habeas corpus under 28

U.S.C. § 2254. In 1999, Petitioner was convicted in Superior Court of Stanislaus County for

attempted escape, battery, and battery on a correctional officer. Petitioner was sentenced to

twelve years to run consecutive with the forty-eight years he was serving at the time of this

conviction. As explained below, Petitioner’s application is dismissed because his claims are

procedurally defaulted. 

I

On November 17, 1999, Petitioner was convicted in Superior Court of Stanislaus County

for attempted escape, battery, and battery on a custodial officer. On May 31, 2001, the

California Court of Appeal modified and affirmed Petitioner’s conviction on direct appeal. Next,

Petitioner filed what the California Supreme Court determined were three writs of habeas corpus,

Case 1:03-cv-05384-ALA Document 19 Filed 01/25/08 Page 1 of 4
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

all of which were denied on the ground that Petitioner failed to abide by California procedural

rules.

II

Federal habeas corpus relief is not available for any claim decided on the merits in state

court proceedings unless the state court's adjudication of the claim:

 (1) resulted in a decision that was contrary to, or involved an 

unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, as

determined by the Supreme Court of the United States; or 

(2) resulted in a decision that was based on an unreasonable 

determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented in the

State court proceeding.

28 U.S.C. § 2254(d). 

Under § 2254(d)(1), “[a] state court decision is ‘contrary to’. . . clearly established

[United States Supreme Court] precedents if it ‘applies a rule that contradicts the governing law

set forth in [Supreme Court] cases,’ or if it ‘confronts a set of facts that are materially

indistinguishable from a decision of [the Supreme] Court and nevertheless arrives at a result

different from [the Supreme Court’s] precedent.” Early v. Packer, 537 U.S. 3, 8 (2002) (citing

and quoting Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362, 405-06 (2000)). 

Under the “unreasonable application” clause of § 2254(d)(1), a federal court may grant

habeas corpus relief if the state court identified the correct governing legal principle from the

Supreme Court’s decisions, but unreasonably applied that principle to the facts of the prisoner’s

case. Williams, 529 U.S. at 413. A federal habeas court, however, “may not issue the writ

simply because that court concludes in its independent judgment that the relevant state-court

decision applied clearly established federal law erroneously or incorrectly. Rather, that

application must also be unreasonable.” Id. at 412; see also Lockyer v. Andrade, 538 U.S. 63, 75

(2003) (it is “not enough that a federal habeas court, in its independent review of the legal

question, is left with a ‘firm conviction’ that the state court was ‘erroneous’”).

/////

Case 1:03-cv-05384-ALA Document 19 Filed 01/25/08 Page 2 of 4
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

/////

III

 In presenting his claims to the state court, a petitioner must comply with state procedural

rules. McQuown v. McCartney, 795 F.2d 807 (9th Cir. 1986). The adequate and independent

state grounds doctrine bars federal habeas review “when a state court declined to address a

prisoner’s federal claims because the prisoner had failed to meet a state procedural requirement.” 

Coleman v. Thompson, 501 U.S. 722, 729-30 (1991). Under that doctrine, a federal court will

not review a question of federal law decided by a state court “if the decision of that court rests on

a state law ground that is independent of the federal question and adequate to support the

judgment.” Vang v. Nevada, 329 F.3d 1069, 1072 (9th Cir. 2003) (quoting Coleman, 501 U.S. at

729). “In all cases in which a state prisoner has defaulted his federal claim in state court

pursuant to an independent and adequate state procedural rule, federal habeas review of the

claims is barred unless the prisoner can demonstrate cause for the default and actual prejudice as

a result of the alleged violation of federal law, or demonstrate that failure to consider the claims

will result in a fundamental miscarriage of justice.” Coleman, 501 U.S. at 750.

Petitioner contends that he filed “a petition for review” of the California Court of

Appeal’s decision with the California Supreme Court. Respondent asserts that Petitioner, filed

“a petition for writ of habeas corpus.” Respondent is correct. The California Supreme Court

determined that what Petitioner mistakenly entitled “petition for review” was instead a writ of

habeas corpus. California Supreme Court Order, S099112, filed on October 31, 2001. In

denying this petition, the court cited In re Waltreus, 397 P.2d 1001, 1005 (Cal. 1965), which

held that habeas corpus cannot be used as a second appeal. Petitioner did not file a motion for

reconsideration before the California Supreme Court on the ground that he intended to file a

petition for review on direct appeal.

 In denying Petitioner’s second petition for a writ of habeas corpus, the California

Supreme Court cited In re Clark, 855 P.2d 729, 760 (Cal. 1993), for the proposition that “absent

Case 1:03-cv-05384-ALA Document 19 Filed 01/25/08 Page 3 of 4
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 Answer, Respondent argues that Petitioner’s claims are procedurally defaulted. 

Petitioner waived his right to file a traverse in response to Respondent’s argument. See

Petitioner’s Denial and Understanding to the Court Without Memorandum of Points and

Authorities for Support. Petitioner stated that he is “unable to submit a rebuttal response” and

asked “the Court to proceed on with Petitioner’s matter.” Id. 

4

justification in a single, timely petition for writ of habeas corpus, successive and/or untimely

petitions will be summarily denied.” 

Thereafter, Petitioner filed another petition for writ of habeas corpus. In denying

Petitioner’s third petition for a writ of habeas corpus, the California Supreme Court held that

under California law that a successive petition based on the same grounds and facts as a prior

petition will be denied. 

The California Supreme Court summarily dismissed Petitioner’s three petitions for

habeas review based upon procedural grounds. Petitioner has failed to demonstrate that he filed

a direct appeal with the California Supreme Court challenging the California Court of Appeal’s 

affirmance of the trial court’s judgment. Therefore, he has not met the state’s procedural

requirements as required by Coleman, 501 U.S. at 729-30. Further, Petitioner has not

demonstrated any cause or actual prejudice that would justify federal review of his application

for habeas corpus relief.1

 Because Petitioner’s claims were dismissed on adequate and

independent state grounds, this Court cannot reach their merits.

CONCLUSION

In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Petitioner’s application

for habeas corpus relief under § 2254 is dismissed.

/////

DATED: January 25, 2008

/s/ Arthur L. Alarcón 

UNITED STATES CIRCUIT JUDGE

Sitting by Designation

Case 1:03-cv-05384-ALA Document 19 Filed 01/25/08 Page 4 of 4