Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-00668/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-00668-1/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 

3:17-cv-00668-GPC-WVG 

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

MORRIS B. GILCHRIST, 

Petitioner,

v. 

WILLIAM GORE, Sheriff, 

Respondent.

 Case No.: 3:17-cv-00668-GPC-WVG 

ORDER 

(1) ADOPTING REPORT AND 

RECOMMENDATION [ECF No. 18]; 

and 

(2) GRANTING RESPONDENT’S 

MOTION TO DISMISS [ECF No. 13] 

 On August 16, 2017, Petitioner Morris B. Gilchrest (“Petitioner”), a state prisoner 

proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed a First Amended Petition for a Writ of 

Habeas Corpus (“Amended Petition”) in this Court. (Dkt. No. 8.) Petitioner challenges 

his incarceration resulting from a conviction of possession of methamphetamine for sale. 

(Id.) On October 16, 2017, Respondent William Gore (“Respondent”) filed a motion to 

dismiss the Petition, arguing that Petitioner has not exhausted state court remedies. (Dkt. 

No. 13.) Petitioner did not file an opposition. On May 23, 2018, Magistrate Judge 

William V. Gallo issued a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) recommending that this 

Court grant the motion to dismiss. (Dkt. No. 18.) Neither party filed an objection to the 

R&R. 

 For the reasons set forth below, the Court adopts the R&R and grants Respondent’s 

Motion to Dismiss. The Amended Petition is dismissed without prejudice. 

Case 3:17-cv-00668-GPC-WVG Document 21 Filed 07/30/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 5
2 

3:17-cv-00668-GPC-WVG 

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

I. Background 

On September 22, 2014, Petitioner pleaded guilty to possession of 

methamphetamine for sale. (Dkt. No. 14-5 at 1.) Petitioner’s plea bargain included a 

maximum punishment of eight years in state prison. (Id.) He was sentenced to three 

years in state custody and five years of mandatory supervision. (Id. at 1-2.) 

On March 2, 2017, Petitioner filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in San 

Diego Superior Court, in which he asserted ineffective assistance of counsel, judicial 

misconduct, and actual innocence. (Dkt. No. 14-2.) On April 6, 2017, the San Diego 

Superior Court denied the petition, finding that: (1) Petitioner failed to make a prima 

facie showing of actual innocence or ineffective assistance of counsel, and (2) his claim 

of judicial misconduct lacked factual allegations and was vague, conclusory, and 

speculative. (Dkt. No. 14-3.) 

 On April 12, 2017, Petitioner filed a second petition for a writ of habeas corpus in 

San Diego Superior Court, asserting: (1) a sentencing enhancement he received was 

unlawful; (2) ineffective assistance of counsel; (3) violations of the Fourteenth 

Amendment; and (4) that he should have received certain custody credits. (Dkt. No. 14-

4.) On April 25, 2017, the Superior Court denied the petition. (Dkt. No. 14-5.) The 

court found: (1) Petitioner’s claims were untimely; (2) Petitioner failed to justify filing 

multiple petitions; and (3) even considering Petitioner’s claims on the merits, they were 

unfounded. (Id.) 

 On April 24, 2017—one day before the Superior Court’s ruling on the second 

petition—Petitioner filed a habeas petition in the Supreme Court of California asserting 

the same claims made in his second Superior Court petition. (Dkt. No. 14-6.) On July 

12, 2017, the Supreme Court of California summarily denied the petition by citing two 

cases: People v. Duvall, 886 P.2d 1252 (Cal. 1995), for the proposition that “a petition for 

writ of habeas corpus must include copies of reasonably available documentary 

evidence,” and In re Swain, 209 P.2d 793 (Cal. 1949), for the proposition that “a petition 

Case 3:17-cv-00668-GPC-WVG Document 21 Filed 07/30/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 5
3 

3:17-cv-00668-GPC-WVG 

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

for writ of habeas corpus must allege sufficient facts with particularity.” (Dkt. No. 14-6.) 

 Petitioner filed a federal habeas petition in this Court on March 31, 2017. (Dkt. 

No. 1.) The Court sua sponte dismissed the petition, however, because it failed to name a 

proper respondent and failed to allege that Petitioner has exhausted his state remedies. 

(Dkt. No. 3.) Petitioner filed his Amended Petition on August 16, 2017. (Dkt. No. 8.) 

The Amended Petition lists just one claim, which appears to be the same Fourteenth 

Amendment claim Petitioner asserted in the petition he filed in the Supreme Court of 

California. (Id. at 6.) Attached to the Amended Petition, however, is a copy of 

Petitioner’s second Superior Court petition, which suggests he might also be asserting the 

other three claims raised in state court. 

II. Standard of Review 

a. Review of Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation 

The Court may “accept, reject, or modify” the recommendation in whole or in part, 

receive more evidence, or return it to the magistrate judge with instructions. 28 U.S.C. 

§ 636(b)(1). The Court engages in de novo review of aspects of the R&R to which an 

objection has been made. United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121-22 (9th 

Cir. 2003) (en banc). “When no timely objection is filed, the court need only satisfy 

itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the 

recommendation.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 advisory committee’s note to 1983 amendment. 

b. Exhaustion 

Federal courts may not grant habeas relief to a state prisoner unless that prisoner 

has exhausted all available state court remedies. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(1)(A); Rose v. 

Lundy, 455 U.S. 509, 518 (1982). A petitioner has satisfied the exhaustion requirement 

if: (1) he has “fairly presented” the claim at issue to the highest state court with 

jurisdiction to consider it; or (2) no state remedy remains available. Johnson v. Zenon, 88 

F.3d 828, 829 (9th Cir. 1996). It is Petitioner’s burden to show that he has exhausted his 

state court remedies. Rollins v. Sup. Ct. of Los Angeles, 706 F. Supp. 2d 1008, 1011 

Case 3:17-cv-00668-GPC-WVG Document 21 Filed 07/30/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 5
4 

3:17-cv-00668-GPC-WVG 

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

(C.D. Cal. 2010); Hess v. Ryan, 651 F. Supp. 2d 1004, 1025-26 (D. Ariz. 2009). 

III. Discussion 

In the instant motion, Respondent argues that Petitioner has not alleged that he has 

exhausted his available state court remedies.1

 Respondent contends that the Supreme 

Court of California’s citation to Swain and Duvall was an invitation for Petitioner to file 

an amended petition. (ECF No. 13-1 at 5.) Because Petitioner has the opportunity to file 

an amended or renewed petition with the Supreme Court of California, Respondent 

contends, Petitioner has not demonstrated exhaustion of his state remedies. 

According to the Ninth Circuit, “the California Supreme Court’s denial of a habeas 

petition with citations to Swain and Duvall in conjunction [is], in effect, the grant of a 

demurrer, i.e., a holding that the petitioner has not pled facts with sufficient 

particularity.” Curiel v. Miller, 830 F.3d 864, 869 (9th Cir. 2016) (en banc) (quoting 

Gaston v. Palmer, 417 F.3d 1030, 1039 (9th Cir. 2005)). In Swain, the Supreme Court of 

California denied a petition on the ground that the petition failed to “allege with 

particularity the facts upon which he would have a final judgment overturned”; in Duvall, 

the court “reiterated that a habeas petitioner must ‘state fully and with particularity the 

facts on which relief is sought’ and ‘include copies of reasonably available documentary 

evidence supporting the claim.’” Id. at 869 (quoting Duvall, 886 P.2d at 1258, and 

Swain, 209 P.2d at 795–96). While the Swain court denied the petition on the ground that 

it lacked sufficient factual allegations, the court did so without prejudice, thereby inviting 

the petitioner to file another petition. 209 P.2d at 796 (“The application for the writ is 

denied without prejudice to the filing of a new petition which shall meet the requirements 

above specified.”). Because the Swain court dismissed that petition without prejudice, 

                                               

1

 Respondent also notes that Petitioner’s claim regarding the illegality of his sentencing enhancement is 

not a cognizable federal habeas claim because it invokes only state law. (Dkt. No.13-1 at 4.) The R&R 

did not address this argument. Because the Court agrees that the Amended Petition should be dismissed 

for other reasons, the Court need not address this issue. 

Case 3:17-cv-00668-GPC-WVG Document 21 Filed 07/30/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 5
5 

3:17-cv-00668-GPC-WVG 

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 Ninth Circuit has interpreted the Supreme Court of California’s denials of habeas 

petitions with citations to Swain and Duvall as an invitation for the petitioner to refile his 

petition after adding more factual and documentary bases for his claims. See Seeboth v. 

Allenby, 789 F.3d 1099, 1104 n.3 (9th Cir. 2015) (“We have held that citation to Duvall

and Swain together constitutes ‘dismissal without prejudice, with leave to amend to plead 

required facts with particularity.” (emphasis in original) (quoting Cross v. Sisto, 676 F.3d 

1172, 1177 (9th Cir. 2012)). 

As noted above, the Supreme Court of California denied Petitioner’s petition citing 

Swain and Duvall. In light of the Ninth Circuit’s interpretation of such a denial, it 

appears that Petitioner has the opportunity to refile his petition with the Supreme Court of 

California.2

 As a result, the Court agrees with the R&R that Petitioner has failed to allege 

exhaustion and that the Amended Petition must be dismissed without prejudice. 

IV. Conclusion 

For the foregoing reasons, the Court ADOPTS Magistrate Judge Gallo’s Report 

and Recommendation. Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED. The Amended 

Petition is DISMISSED without prejudice. If Petitioner wishes to file a Second Amended 

Petition, he may do so within 21 days of the date this order is filed. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: July 30, 2018 

                                              

2

 It should be noted that if a federal habeas petitioner contends that his claims were “incapable of being 

alleged with any greater particularity” than what was presented to the Supreme Court of California, the 

district court should determine whether the state habeas petition fairly presented to the Supreme Court of 

California the same claim (or claims) that is (or are) presented in the federal petition. See Kim v. 

Villalobos, 799 F.2d 1317, 1319–20 (9th Cir. 1986) (“The state courts, by denying a writ for lack of 

particularity when the claims are alleged with as much particularity as is practicable, cannot forever 

preclude the petitioner from reaching federal court.”). Petitioner here, however, does not make such an 

assertion. If Petitioner believes that he cannot plead his claims with any more particularity than what he 

presented to the Supreme Court of California, he should file a Second Amended Petition that explains 

why he cannot add further particularization to the petition he filed in the Supreme Court of California. 

Case 3:17-cv-00668-GPC-WVG Document 21 Filed 07/30/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 5 of 5