Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-01845/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-01845-0/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 1

the extent that the practice 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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CYNTHIA ROSALIE HEREDIA, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. )

)

)

DEBORAH PATRICK, )

)

Defendants. )

)

___________________________________ )

1:06-CV-1845 AWI WMW HC

FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATIONS RE

DISMISSAL OF ACTION FOR

FAILURE TO EXHAUST

STATE 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 pursuant to Rule 4 of

the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases and Rule 16 of the Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure.

1

Case 1:06-cv-01845-AWI-WMW Document 5 Filed 04/30/07 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

inconsistent with these rules, may be applied, when appropriate, to the petitions filed under these

rules.” Rule 11, Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. 

2

In this case, Petitioner simply states that on July 15, 2005, she received a serious

CDC 15 3016(A) regarding possession of a controlled substance. Petitioner provides no

indication in her petition that she has exhausted her state administrative and judicial remedies

in regard to challenging this matter.

A petitioner who is in state custody and wishes to collaterally challenge her 

conviction by a 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 (9th

Cir. 1988). 

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. 1996). A federal court will find that the highest state court was given

th

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 example, if a petitioner

th

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

Case 1:06-cv-01845-AWI-WMW Document 5 Filed 04/30/07 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 3

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.”). Further, the appeals procedure of the Department of Corrections provides

administrative remedies which must normally be exhausted before habeas corpus relief is

sought from the superior court.

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.

In this case, the court finds that Petitioner has not exhausted her state administrative

and judicial remedies. Accordingly, the court HEREBY RECOMMENDS that this action be

DISMISSED without prejudice.

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

Case 1:06-cv-01845-AWI-WMW Document 5 Filed 04/30/07 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 4

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 District Court’s order. 

Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 27, 2007 /s/ William M. Wunderlich 

mmkd34 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-01845-AWI-WMW Document 5 Filed 04/30/07 Page 4 of 4