Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_03-cv-01558/USCOURTS-caed-2_03-cv-01558-1/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

 Petitioner has included in his opposition a request for an evidentiary hearing on the 1

merits of his claims. Respondent has not yet filed an answer to the amended petition. Good

cause appearing, petitioner’s request for evidentiary hearing will be denied without prejudice.

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RAYMOND H. DENTON, JR.,

Petitioner, No. CIV S-03-1558 DFL JFM P

vs.

SILVIA GARCIA, Warden, ORDER AND

Respondent. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

 /

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

corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Petitioner challenges his 2000 conviction on multiple

charges of aggravated sexual assault on a child, lewd and lascivious conduct with a child under

the age of fourteen, and inflicting corporal punishment on a child. Petitioner’s September 20,

2004 amended petition raises a total of 35 claims. On April 29, 2005, respondent moved to

dismiss the amended petition because petitioner had failed to omit his unexhausted claims as

previously directed by the court. On May 23, 2005, petitioner filed an opposition to the motion. 

1

Case 2:03-cv-01558-RRB -JFM Document 35 Filed 10/12/05 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

 A petition may be denied on the merits without exhaustion of state court remedies. 28 2

U.S.C. § 2254(b)(2). 

2

The exhaustion of state court remedies is a prerequisite to the granting of a

petition for writ of habeas corpus. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(1). If exhaustion is to be waived, it must

be waived explicitly by respondents’ counsel. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(3). A waiver of exhaustion, 2

thus, may not be implied or inferred. A petitioner satisfies the exhaustion requirement by

providing the highest state court with a full and fair opportunity to consider all claims before

presenting them to the federal court. Picard v. Connor, 404 U.S. 270, 276 (1971); Middleton v.

Cupp, 768 F.2d 1083, 1086 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 478 U.S. 1021 (1986). 

The state court has had an opportunity to rule on the merits when the petitioner

has fairly presented the claim to that court. The fair presentation requirement is met where the

petitioner has described the operative facts and legal theory on which his claim is based. Picard,

404 U.S. at 277-78. Generally, it is “not enough that all the facts necessary to support the federal

claim were before the state courts . . . or that a somewhat similar state-law claim was made.”

Anderson v. Harless, 459 U.S. 4, 6 (1982). Instead, 

[i]f 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 v. Henry, 513 U.S. 364, 365 (1995). Accordingly, “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.” Gray v. Netherland, 518 U.S. 152, 116 S. Ct. 2074,

2081 (1996). The United States Supreme Court has held that a federal district court may not

entertain a petition for habeas corpus unless the petitioner has exhausted state remedies with

respect to each of the claims raised. Rose v. Lundy, 455 U.S. 509 (1982). 

/////

Case 2:03-cv-01558-RRB -JFM Document 35 Filed 10/12/05 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

 There are minor changes to the reference numbers because petitioner removed grounds 3

7-A and 9 as this court previously found those claims to be unexhausted. (September 1, 2004

order at 4.)

 The above-noted omission of ground 11 throws off the numbering by one when

4

comparing the amended petition herein with the July 9, 2003 petition before the California

Supreme Court. Thus, petitioner raised 36 claims in state court, but brings only 35 claims here.

3

On March 30, 2005, the United States Supreme Court issued an opinion that

affects this case. Rhines v. Weber, _____ U.S. _____, 125 S.Ct. 1528 (March 30, 2005). 

Petitioner is no longer required to file an amended petition raising only exhausted claims. 

Petitioner indicates in his response that he is prepared to proceed on all exhausted claims and to

drop any unexhausted claims. (Opp’n. at 3.) Accordingly, this court will determine which

claims are exhausted and respondent will be directed to file an answer as to those claims only. 

In his opposition, petitioner states his amended petition contains the exact same

claims that were exhausted in the California Supreme Court in two separate proceedings, except

that he removed claims 7-A and 9 pursuant to this court’s September 1, 2004 order. (Opp’n. at

2.) Indeed, the amended petition appears to initially track petitioner’s July 13, 2002 petition for

writ of habeas corpus filed with the California Supreme Court. (See Ex. 3 to July 9, 2004 3

Motion to Dismiss.) The first 19 grounds are claims petitioner raised in the California Supreme

Court and are therefore exhausted. 

Grounds 20 through 35 of the amended petition track petitioner’s July 9, 2003

petition for writ of habeas corpus filed with the California Supreme Court. (See Ex. 6 to July 9,

2004 Motion to Dismiss.) Because claims 20 through 35 were raised in the California Supreme 4

Court, these claims are also exhausted. 

Because all of petitioner’s claims have been exhausted, respondent’s motion to

dismiss should be denied and respondent should be directed to file an answer.

In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that petitioner’s May

23, 2005 request for an evidentiary hearing is denied without prejudice; and

Case 2:03-cv-01558-RRB -JFM Document 35 Filed 10/12/05 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

4

IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that:

1. Respondent’s April 29, 2005 motion to dismiss be denied; and

2. Respondent be directed to file an answer within thirty days of any order

adopting these findings and recommendations and include with the answer any and all transcripts

or other documents relevant to the determination of the issues presented in the application; and 

3. Petitioner’s traverse be due thirty days thereafter. 

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District

Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within twenty

days after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written

objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned

“Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Any reply to the objections

shall be served and filed within ten days after service of the objections. 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).

DATED: October 11, 2005.

1 

dent1558.mtd

Case 2:03-cv-01558-RRB -JFM Document 35 Filed 10/12/05 Page 4 of 4