Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00822/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00822-1/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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

TERRANCE CONLEY,

Petitioner,

v.

K.M. POWERS, Warden,

Respondent.

 /

CV F 05-0822 OWW SMS HC

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE REGARDING

EXHAUSTION OF STATE COURT

REMEDIES

[Doc. 5]

Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas corpus

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 

This action is proceeding on Petitioner’s amended petition, filed August 23, 2005. In the

amended petition, Petitioner raises the following claims: (1) ineffective assistance of counsel; (2)

illegal search and seizure in violation of the Fourth Amendment; (3) Due Process and Equal

Protection violations; and (4) Due Process and Equal Protection rights violation due to false

reports, prosecutorial misconduct and judicial bias. 

Petitioner contends that he filed an appeal to the California Court of Appeal, Fifth

Appellate District raising the claim of an unlawful sentence and violation of Sixth, Eighth and

Fourteenth Amendments. Petitioner contends that he raised the same claims to the California

Supreme Court and has not received a response. In reviewing Petitioner’s petition it is not clear

what claims were even presented, let alone exhausted, at the California Supreme Court. 

Petitioner submits several attachments to his amended petition; however, he did not submit the

Case 1:05-cv-00822-OWW -SMS Document 9 Filed 10/12/05 Page 1 of 3
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

1A copy of the California Supreme Court’s denial alone is insufficient to demonstrate exhaustion. The

proper documentation to provide would be a copy of the Petition filed in the California Supreme Court that includes

the claim now presented and a file stamp showing that it was indeed filed in that Court. 

2

petitions that were submitted to the California Court of Appeal and California Supreme Court.

A petitioner who is in state custody and wishes to collaterally challenge his 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 (9th Cir. 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 (9th Cir.1998). For 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.

Because it is unclear whether the claims presented in the instant federal petition for writ

of habeas corpus were presented and exhausted in the state’s highest court, Petitioner will be

ordered to show cause regarding exhaustion. If possible, Petitioner should present to the Court

documentary evidence that the claims were indeed presented to the California Supreme Court.1

///

///

Case 1:05-cv-00822-OWW -SMS Document 9 Filed 10/12/05 Page 2 of 3
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

Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Within thirty (30) days from the date of service of this order, Petitioner shall show

cause as to what claims were presented to the state’s highest court.

2. Failure to comply with this order may result in the action be dismissed for failure

to comply with a court order. Local Rule 11-110. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 11, 2005 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder 

icido3 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-00822-OWW -SMS Document 9 Filed 10/12/05 Page 3 of 3