Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00119/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00119-0/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

U.S . District Court

 E. D . California cd 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LORENZO FOSSELMAN, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

)

v. )

)

)

RICHARD J. KIRKLAND, Warden, )

)

Respondent. )

____________________________________)

CV F 05 0119 AWI SMS HC

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE REGARDING

PETITIONER’S MOTION TO AMEND

[Doc. #10]

ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR

EXTENSION OF TIME

[Doc. #12]

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

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254.

On January 20, 2005, Petitioner filed the instant federal petition for writ of habeas corpus in

this Court. On February 25, 2005, the Court issued an order directing Respondent to file a response

to the petition. On April 20, 2005, Petitioner filed a motion requesting the petition be amended to

include the following new claim: Petitioner alleges he was denied counsel at a critical stage in the

proceedings, to wit, during formal sentencing. On May 26, 2005, Respondent filed a motion

requesting an extension of time to file a response to the petition.

Case 1:05-cv-00119-AWI -SMS Document 13 Filed 06/02/05 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

U.S . District Court

 E. D . California cd 2

DISCUSSION

I. Exhaustion of State Remedies

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 (1991); Rose v. Lundy, 455 U.S. 509, 518 (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. Duncan v.

Henry, 513 U.S. 364, 365 (1995); Picard v. Connor, 404 U.S. 270, 276 (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, 513 U.S. at 365 (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; Lyons v. Crawford, 232 F.3d 666, 669

(9th Cir.2000), amended, 247 F.3d 904 (2001); Hiivala v. Wood, 195 F.3d 1098, 1106 (9th Cir.1999);

Keating v. Hood, 133 F.3d 1240, 1241 (9th Cir.1998). In Duncan, the United States Supreme Court

reiterated the rule as follows: 

In Picard v. Connor, 404 U.S. 270, 275 . . . (1971), we said that exhaustion 

of state remedies requires that petitioners "fairly presen[t]" federal claims to the 

state courts in order to give the State the "'opportunity to pass upon and correct 

alleged violations of the prisoners' federal rights" (some internal quotation marks

omitted). If state courts are to be given the opportunity to correct alleged violations 

of prisoners' federal rights, they must surely be alerted to the fact that the prisoners 

are asserting claims under the United States Constitution. If a habeas petitioner 

wishes to claim that an evidentiary ruling at a state court trial denied him the due 

process of law guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment, he must say so, not only 

in federal court, but in state court. 

Duncan, 513 U.S. at 365-366. The Ninth Circuit examined the rule further, stating:

Our rule is that a state prisoner has not "fairly presented" (and thus 

exhausted) his federal claims in state court unless he specifically indicated to 

Case 1:05-cv-00119-AWI -SMS Document 13 Filed 06/02/05 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

U.S . District Court

 E. D . California cd 3

that court that those claims were based on federal law. See Shumway v. Payne, 

223 F.3d 982, 987-88 (9th Cir. 2000). Since the Supreme Court's decision in 

Duncan, this court has held that the petitioner must make the federal basis of the 

claim explicit either by citing federal law or the decisions of federal courts, even

if the federal basis is “self-evident," Gatlin v. Madding, 189 F.3d 882, 889 

(9th Cir. 1999) (citing Anderson v. Harless, 459 U.S. 4, 7 . . . (1982), or the 

underlying claim would be decided under state law on the same considerations 

that would control resolution of the claim on federal grounds. Hiivala v. Wood, 

195 F3d 1098, 1106-07 (9th Cir. 1999); Johnson v. Zenon, 88 F.3d 828, 830-31 

(9th Cir. 1996); . . . .

In Johnson, we explained that the petitioner must alert the state court to 

the fact that the relevant claim is a federal one without regard to how similar the 

state and federal standards for reviewing the claim may be or how obvious the 

violation of federal law is. 

Lyons v. Crawford, 232 F.3d 666, 668-669 (9th Cir. 2000) (italics added). 

Petitioner requests the petition be amended to include his new claim. However, Petitioner

does not state whether the claim has been presented to the highest state court. If Petitioner has not

presented the claim to the California Supreme Court, the claim cannot be amended into the instant

petition. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(1). It is possible, however, that Petitioner has presented the claim to

the California Supreme Court and simply neglected to inform this Court. Thus, Petitioner must

inform the Court if the claim has been presented to the California Supreme Court, and if possible,

provide the Court with a copy of the petition filed in the California Supreme Court, along with a

copy of any ruling made by the California Supreme Court. 

II. Extension of Time

Respondent has filed a request for an extension of time in which to file a response to the

petition. Accordingly, good cause having been presented to the Court and good cause appearing

therefor, Respondent is GRANTED an extension of time of thirty (30) days to and including

June 30, 2005, to file a response.

ORDER

Accordingly, Petitioner is ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE why his request should not be

denied for failure to exhaust state remedies. Petitioner is ORDERED to inform the Court whether

his claim has been presented to the California Supreme Court within thirty (30) days of the date of

service of this order. Failure to follow this order will result in denial of his motion to amend. 

In addition, Respondent’s motion for an extension of time is GRANTED. A response to the

Case 1:05-cv-00119-AWI -SMS Document 13 Filed 06/02/05 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

U.S . District Court

 E. D . California cd 4

petition is due on or before June 30, 2005.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 1, 2005 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder 

icido3 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-00119-AWI -SMS Document 13 Filed 06/02/05 Page 4 of 4