Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-00020/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-00020-0/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

The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure are “applicable to habeas corpus proceedings to the extent that the practice 1

in such proceedings are not set forth in the statutes of the United States and has heretofore conformed to the practice of civil

actions.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 81(a)(2). Rule 11 also provides “the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, to the extent that they are not

inconsistent with these rules, may be applied, when appropriate, to the petitions filed under these rules.” Rule 11, Rules

Governing Section 2254 Cases. 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

WILLIAM NASH MARTINEZ,

Petitioner,

v.

JAMES TILTON, DIRECTOR,

Respondent.

 /

1: 07 CV 00020 LJO WMW HC

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS RE

DISMISSAL OF PETITION FOR FAILURE TO

EXHAUST STATE JUDICIAL REMEDIES

Petitioner is a prisoner proceeding with a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28

U.S.C. Section 2254. The Court has conducted a preliminary review of the petition. Accordingly,

pursuant to Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases and Rule 16 of the Federal Rules of

Civil Procedure, the court finds as follows.

1

A petitioner who is in state custody and wishes to collaterally challenge his conviction by a

Case 1:07-cv-00020-LJO-WMW Document 5 Filed 05/03/07 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

27

28

petition for writ of habeas corpus must exhaust state judicial remedies. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(1). The

exhaustion doctrine is based on comity to the state court and gives the state court the initial

opportunity to correct the state's alleged constitutional deprivations. Coleman v. Thompson, 501

U.S. 722, 731, 111 S.Ct. 2546, 2554-55 (1991); Rose v. Lundy, 455 U.S. 509, 518, 102 S.Ct. 1198,

1203 (1982); Buffalo v. Sunn, 854 F.2d 1158, 1163 (9 Cir. 1988). th

A petitioner can satisfy the exhaustion requirement by providing the highest state court with

a full and fair opportunity to consider each claim before presenting it to the federal court. Picard v.

Connor, 404 U.S. 270, 276, 92 S.Ct. 509, 512 (1971); Johnson v. Zenon, 88 F.3d 828, 829 (9 Cir. th

1996). A federal court will find that the highest state court was given a full and fair opportunity to

hear a claim if the petitioner has presented the highest state court with the claim's factual and legal

basis. Duncan v. Henry, 513 U.S. 364, 365, 115 S.Ct. 887, 888 (1995) (legal basis); Kenney v.

Tamayo-Reyes, 504 U.S. 1, 112 S.Ct. 1715, 1719 (1992) (factual basis). Additionally, the petitioner

must have specifically told the state court that he was raising a federal constitutional claim. Duncan,

513 U.S. at 365-66, 115 S.Ct. at 888; Keating v. Hood, 133 F.3d 1240, 1241 (9 Cir.1998). For th

example, if a petitioner wishes to claim that the trial court violated his due process rights “he must

say so, not only in federal court but in state court.” Duncan, 513 U.S. at 366, 115 S.Ct. at 888. A

general appeal to a constitutional guarantee is insufficient to present the "substance" of such a

federal claim to a state court. See, Anderson v. Harless, 459 U.S. 4, 7, 103 S.Ct. 276 (1982)

(Exhaustion requirement not satisfied circumstance that the "due process ramifications" of an

argument might be "self-evident."); Gray v. Netherland, 518 U.S. 152, 162-63, 116 S.Ct. 1074

(1996) (“a claim for relief in habeas corpus must include reference to a specific federal

constitutional guarantee, as well as a statement of the facts which entitle the petitioner to relief.”).

In this case, the petition does not show that Petitioner presented any of his claims to the

California Supreme Court, either on direct appeal or on habeas corpus. The court must dismiss a

petition that contains unexhausted claims, even if it also contains exhausted claims. Rose, 455 U.S.

at 521-22, 102 S.Ct. at 1205; Calderon v. United States Dist. Court (Gordon), 107 F.3d 756, 760 (9th

Cir. 1997) (en banc) cert. denied, 118 S.Ct. 265 (1997); Guizar v. Estelle, 843 F.2d 371, 372 (9th

Cir.1988).

Case 1:07-cv-00020-LJO-WMW Document 5 Filed 05/03/07 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

27

28

In 1996, Congress enacted the Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act. Pub.L. No

104-132, 110 Stat. 1214. Under the AEDPA, exhaustion can be waived by Respondent. 28 U.S.C. §

2254(b)(C). The Court can also excuse exhaustion if “(I) there is an absence of available State

corrective process; or (ii) circumstances exist that render such a process ineffective to protect the

rights of the applicant.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(1)(B). In this case, Respondent has not waived

exhaustion. In addition, California provides avenues for Petitioner to pursue state claims. For

example, these claims could have been presented in a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus. See, Cal.

Penal Code §§ 1473 - 1475. Finally, there are not sufficient circumstances in this case for the Court

to ignore the United States Supreme Court’s admonishment that comity demands exhaustion and

find that California’s corrective processes are ineffective to protect Petitioner’s rights.

It appears from the petition for writ of habeas corpus currently before this court that

Petitioner has not exhausted any of his claims. Therefore, the petition must be dismissed. See, 28

U.S.C. § 2254(b)(1); Rose, 455 U.S. at 521-22, 102 S.Ct. at 1205; Gordon, 107 F.3d at 760; Guizar

843 F.2d at 372.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that the petition for writ of habeas corpus

be DISMISSED for failure to exhaust state judicial remedies. It is further recommended that the

Clerk of the Court be ordered to enter judgment for Respondent and to close this case.

These Findings and Recommendation are submitted to the assigned United States District

Court Judge, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. section 636 (b)(1)(B) and Rule 72-304 of the

Local Rules of Practice for the United States District Court, Eastern District of California. Within

thirty (30) days after being served with a copy, any party may file written objections with the court

and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate

Judge’s Findings and Recommendation.” Replies to the objections shall be served and filed within

ten (10) court days (plus three days if served by mail) after service of the objections. The court will

then review the Magistrate Judge’s ruling pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(C). The parties are

advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the

Case 1:07-cv-00020-LJO-WMW Document 5 Filed 05/03/07 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

27

28

District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 2, 2007 /s/ William M. Wunderlich 

mmkd34 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:07-cv-00020-LJO-WMW Document 5 Filed 05/03/07 Page 4 of 4