Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-03545/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-03545-4/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

JESUS MORALES,

Petitioner,

 v.

A.K. SCRIBNER, Warden,

Respondent. /

No. C 05-3545 JSW

ORDER GRANTING

RESPONDENT'S MOTION TO

DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO

EXHAUST STATE REMEDIES

Now before the Court is the motion of respondent A.K. Scribner ("Scribner") to dismiss

the petition for writ of habeas corpus for failure to exhaust state remedies. Having carefully

reviewed the parties' papers and considered their arguments and the relevant legal authority, and

with good cause appearing, the Court hereby GRANTS Scribner's motion.

BACKGROUND

On March 18, 2003, Petitioner Jesus Morales ("Morales") was convicted of forcible rape

and forcible sexual battery under California Penal Code sections 261(a)(2) and 243.3(c). On

May 29, 2003, Morales was sentenced to 10 years in prison. Morales unsuccessfully appealed

his conviction to the First District Court of Appeal of California and the Supreme Court of

California. His final petition for review, to the Supreme Court of California, was denied on

February 23, 2005. 

On September 1, 2005, Morales, a prisoner in the California State Prison, Corcoran,

filed a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Morales seeks federal habeas relief

by raising the following claims: (1) by preventing the defense from introducing evidence of the 

Case 3:05-cv-03545-JSW Document 14 Filed 06/12/06 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

complaining witness' prior false accusation, the court violated his right to due process of law

under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution; (2) by permitting

the prosecution to elicit evidence of the accusation and barring the defense from crossexamination, the court violated Morales' right to due process of law under the Fifth and

Fourteenth Amendments and the right to confront and cross-examine witnesses under the Sixth

and Fourteenth Amendments; (3) the prosecutor engaged in misconduct by arguing facts outside

of the record in his closing argument, violating Morales' right to due process under the Fifth and

Fourteenth Amendments; and (4) defense counsel was ineffective in violation of Morales' right

to effective assistance of counsel under the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments.

On April 13, 2006, Scribner moved to dismiss Morales' habeas petition for failure to

exhaust state remedies. Specifically, Scribner claims, and Morales concedes, that Morales

failed to fully exhaust his claim for ineffective assistance of counsel in violation of the Sixth

and Fourteenth Amendments, as the claim was not included in the petition for review before the

Supreme Court of California. 

DISCUSSION

A. Legal Standard for Exhaustion.

Prisoners in state custody who wish to challenge collaterally in federal habeas

proceedings either the fact or length of their confinement are required to first exhaust state

judicial remedies, either on direct appeal or through collateral proceedings, by presenting the

highest state court available with a fair opportunity to rule on the merits of each and every claim

they seek to raise in federal court. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b), (c); Rose v. Lundy, 455 U.S. 509, 515-

16 (1982). The state's highest court must be given an opportunity to rule on the claims even if

review is discretionary. O'Sullivan v. Boerckel, 526 U.S. 838, 845 (1999). A federal district

court must dismiss a federal habeas petition containing any claim as to which state remedies

have not been exhausted. Rose, 455 U.S. at 518-19. Requiring exhaustion of claims provides

state courts with "the first opportunity to correct federal constitutional errors and minimizes

federal interference and disruption of state judicial proceedings." Id. at 514. If the petition

combines exhausted and unexhausted claims, the district court must dismiss the entire habeas

Case 3:05-cv-03545-JSW Document 14 Filed 06/12/06 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

Morales' claims can be distinguished from Insyxiengmay v. Morgan, 403 F.3d 657, 668 (9th Cir.

2005). In that case, the court held that petitioner had exhausted his claims when he proceeded pro se and

presented his claims in an additional brief appended to his brief before the Washington Supreme Court. Id. at

669. Here, Morales is represented by counsel, and his appendix did not include an alternative brief, but rather

only included the lower court opinion, which the higher court was not under any obligation to review.

3

petition without reaching the merits of any of its claims. Guizar v. Estelle, 843 F.2d 371, 372

(9th Cir. 1988). If there is good cause to explain why the claim remains unexhausted, the

district court may stay the petition and hold it in abeyance "while the petitioner returns to state

court to exhaust his previously unexhausted claims." Rhines v. Webster, 544 U.S. 269, 275

(2005).

Morales presented his ineffective assistance of counsel claim to the court of appeal and

the court addressed the claim in a footnote of its opinion. Morales included the Court of Appeal

opinion in an appendix to his petition to the Supreme Court of California. (Petition for Review

to the Supreme Court of California, Appendix at 16.) However, state appellate courts are not

required to read lower court opinions; claims must be presented to the court in the petition or

brief. Baldwin v. Reese, 541 U.S. 27, 31-32 (2004). Requiring otherwise would "force state

appellate judges to alter their ordinary course of review," for some legal questions can be

decided on the briefs alone, and would also "impose a serious burden upon judges of state

appellate courts." Id. at 31.1

 Because Morales' ineffective assistance of counsel claim was not

in the brief, it was not exhausted. Failure to exhaust mandates dismissal of the mixed petition. 

See Guizan, 843 F.2d at 372.

B. Mere Oversight Does Not Constitute Good Cause for a Stay.

Morales requests that the district court apply the "stay and abeyance" procedure to his

petition. Application of the "stay and abeyance" procedure is "only appropriate when the

district court determines there was good cause for the petitioner's failure to exhaust his claims

first in state court." Rhines, 544 U.S. at 277. District courts within the Ninth Circuit have

found "good cause" to require at a minimum a showing of some "circumstance over which

[petitioner] had little or no control" that prevented the petitioner from asserting the unexhausted

claim in the state courts. Ringer v. Crawford, 415 F. Supp. 2d 1207, 1211 (E.D. Nev. 2006);

see also Hernandez v. Sullivan, 397 F. Supp. 2d 1205, 1207 (C.D. Cal. 2005) (adopting the

Case 3:05-cv-03545-JSW Document 14 Filed 06/12/06 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

4

"good cause" standard of procedural defaults in which "a petitioner ordinarily must show that

the default resulted from an objective factor external to the petitioner which cannot fairly be

attributed to him."). Morales notes that the ineffective assistance of counsel claim "was omitted

[in the petition to the supreme court] through oversight." (Petitioner's Memorandum in

Opposition to Motion to Dismiss at 2.) Because counsel's own oversight was not a factor

beyond his control and Morales successfully presented the claim to the court of appeals, the

Court determines that the oversight does not constitute good cause for failure to exhaust the

ineffective assistance of counsel claim before the Supreme Court of California. On this basis,

the Court declines to exercise its discretion to stay the petition and hold it in abeyance while

petitioner returns to state court to exhaust his claim. See Rhines, 544 U.S. at 275.

CONCLUSION

In accordance with the foregoing reasons, the Court hereby GRANTS respondent's

motion to dismiss. Morales may either: (1) abandon the unexhausted claims and proceed with

the petition containing only the exhausted claims; or (2) request dismissal of the entire petition

without prejudice and complete exhaustion of his unexhausted claim in state court. He can then

file a new federal petition presenting all of his claims, assuming that the petition would not be

barred by the statute of limitations. See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d). Morales must file and serve no

later than thirty days from the date of this order a notice in which he states whether he elects

either to (1) dismiss the unexhausted claims and go forward with only the remaining exhausted

claims; or (2) terminate this action and return to state court to complete the exhaustion of all of

his claims before returning to federal court to present his claims in a new petition. If Morales

fails to comply with this order, this action will be dismissed without prejudice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 12, 2006 

JEFFREY S. WHITE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:05-cv-03545-JSW Document 14 Filed 06/12/06 Page 4 of 4