Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-00554/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-00554-4/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)

---

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

1

 When petitioner filed his application, he was confined at Pleasant Valley State Prison,

where James Yates is the warden. He has since been transferred to Salinas Valley State Prison. 

Mike Evans, Warden of Salinas Valley State Prison, is hereby substituted for James Yates. See

Fed. R. Civ. P. 25 (d)(1).

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

KEITH D. JOHNSON,

Petitioner, No. CIV S-06-0554 MCE EFB P

vs.

MIKE EVANS, Warden, et al.,

Respondents. ORDER

 /

Petitioner is a state prisoner without counsel seeking a writ of habeas corpus. See 28

U.S.C. § 2254. Respondents move1

 to dismiss upon the grounds that petitioner failed to exhaust

available state remedies and that this court should abstain based on Younger abstention. Younger

v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37, 40-41 (1971). Respondent asserts that the claims presented in the federal

petition currently are pending in petitioner’s application for a writ of habeas corpus in the

California Supreme Court. Petitioner opposes, asserting that the California Supreme Court has

resolved that application. For the reasons explained below, the court finds that petitioner has

exhausted available state remedies with respect to all the claims in his federal petition. 

Case 2:06-cv-00554-MCE-CHS Document 17 Filed 01/25/07 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

2

Therefore, the abstention doctrine is no longer applicable to this petition.

I. Procedural History

On January 10, 2003, petitioner was convicted of kidnaping, sexual penetration with a

foreign object, sexual battery, assault with intent to commit rape and assault with intent to

commit oral copulation and, based on these offenses and various facts to enhance the sentence,

he was sentenced to serve 37 years to life in prison. Petitioner appealed, raising the following

claims: (1) that the sentence enhancements based on use of a weapon should have been stayed;

(2) that the sentence imposed on the kidnaping count should have been stayed pursuant to Cal.

Pen. Code § 654; and (3) that imposing the greatest possible term on count two and ordering

consecutive sentences violated his right to due process as explained in Blakely v. Washington,

542 U.S. 296, 303-306 (2004). Lodged Doc. 1. The appellate court affirmed the judgment in its

entirety. Petitioner filed in the California Supreme Court a petition for review of the appellate

court’s disposition of the claim arising under Blakely. That court denied review. Petitioner

sought a writ of habeas corpus from the trial court and from the appellate court, but each court

denied the writ. Lodged Doc. 4. On March 17, 2006, petitioner filed a petition for a writ of

habeas corpus in the California Supreme Court, case number S141962. That petition claimed

that: (1) counsel was ineffective in 32 specific instances; (2) the prosecution failed to disclose

material, exculpatory evidence; (3) both trial and appellate counsel operated under active

conflicts of interest; (4) the evidence was insufficient to support the convictions; (5) various

other errors cumulatively deprived petitioner of a fair trial; (6) appellate counsel was ineffective

by failing to raise various claims and by failing effectively to argue the claims actually raised;

and (7) the prosecution engaged in misconduct that violated petitioner’s right to a fair trial. 

Lodged Doc. 4. The California Supreme Court denied that petition on November 15, 2006.

On February 28, 2006, petitioner filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in this court. 

Petitioner filed a form petition and specifically incorporated the petition he filed in the California

Supreme Court and attached a copy of it.

Case 2:06-cv-00554-MCE-CHS Document 17 Filed 01/25/07 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

3

II. Legal Standards

A district court may not grant a petition for a writ of habeas corpus unless “the applicant

has exhausted the remedies available in the courts of the State,” or unless there is no State

corrective process or “circumstances exist that render such process ineffective to protect the

rights of the applicant.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(1). A petitioner satisfies the exhaustion

requirement by presenting the “substance of his federal habeas corpus claim” to the state courts. 

Picard v. Connor, 404 U.S. 270, 278 (1971) (no exhaustion where the petitioner presented

operative facts but not legal theory to state courts); see also Duncan v. Henry, 513 U.S. 364, 365

(1995)(to exhaust a claim, a state court “must surely be alerted to the fact that the prisoners are

asserting claims under the United States Constitution”). A claim is unexhausted if any state

remedy is available. See O’Sullivan v. Boerckel, 526 U.S. 838, 848 (1999) (petitioner must seek

discretionary review from state court of last resort); Roberts v. Arave, 874 F.2d 528, 529 (9th

Cir. 1988)(no exhaustion where state supreme court referred petitioner’s appeal of trial court’s

denial of post-conviction relief to lower appellate court and petitioner failed to appeal lower

court’s disposition of that appeal to state supreme court). Unless the respondent specifically

consents to the court entertaining unexhausted claims, a petition containing such claims must be

dismissed. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(3); Picard, 404 U.S. at 275. For a California prisoner to

exhaust, he must present his claims to the California Supreme Court on appeal in a petition for

review or on post-conviction in a petition for a writ of habeas corpus. See Carey v. Saffold, 536

U.S. 223, 239-40 (2002) (describing California’s habeas corpus procedure); Gatlin v. Madding,

189 F.3d 882, 888 (9th Cir. 1999) (to exhaust, prisoner must present claims on appeal to

California Supreme Court in a petition for review).

III. Analysis

By incorporating by reference the claims he raised in his habeas petition filed in the

California Supreme Court and attaching that petition to the federal form, petitioner raises in this

court all the grounds for relief alleged in habeas proceedings before the California Supreme

Case 2:06-cv-00554-MCE-CHS Document 17 Filed 01/25/07 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

Court. At the time respondent filed his motion to dismiss, his assertion that the California

Supreme Court has not yet resolved petitioner’s state-court application was accurate. However,

as shown from the copy of the order of the Supreme Court of California in case number S141962

submitted by petitioner his petition in that court was denied on November 15, 2006. While

respondent does not concede that exhaustion was complete as of that date (thereby obviating the

need for this court to engage in a time-consuming review of the matter), neither does he contest

the fact. The court therefore finds that petitioner has exhausted available state remedies. 

Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that:

1. Respondent’s July 19, 2006, motion to dismiss for petitioner’s failure to exhaust state

remedies is denied;

2. Respondent shall file and serve a response to petitioner’s application within 60 days

from the date of this order. See Rule 4, Rules Governing § 2254 Cases. An answer shall be

accompanied by any and all transcripts or other documents relevant to the determination of the

issues presented in the application. See Rule 5, Rules Governing § 2254 Cases. 

3. Petitioner’s reply, if any, shall be filed and served within 30 days of service of an

answer.

Dated: January 24, 2007.

Case 2:06-cv-00554-MCE-CHS Document 17 Filed 01/25/07 Page 4 of 4