Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-02877/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-02877-3/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CHARLES AUSTIN PARKS, No. CIV S-06-2877-FCD-CMK-P

Petitioner, 

vs. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

DAVID L. RUNNELS, et al.,

Respondents.

 /

Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this petition for a writ of

habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Pending before the court is respondents’ motion to

dismiss (Doc. 10). Petitioner has filed an opposition (Doc. 11). In their motion to dismiss,

respondents argue that federal review of petitioner’s claim is barred because he defaulted in state

court by not exhausting administrative remedies as required by In re Dexter, 25 Cal.3d 921

(1979). 

Based on concerns of comity and federalism, federal courts will not review a

habeas petitioner's claims if the state court decision denying relief rests on a state law ground that

is independent of federal law and adequate to support the judgment. See Coleman v. Thompson,

501 U.S. 722 (1991); Harris v. Reed, 489 U.S. 255, 260-62 (1989). Generally, the only state law

Case 2:06-cv-02877-FCD-CMK Document 12 Filed 05/25/07 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

It appears that the California Supreme Court was incorrect in concluding in its 1

November 1, 2006, decision that petitioner had not exhausted all available administrative

remedies. 

2

grounds meeting these requirements are state procedural rules. Even if there is an independent

and adequate state ground for the decision, the federal court may still consider the claim if the

petitioner can demonstrate: (1) cause for the default and actual prejudice resulting from the

alleged violation of federal law, or (2) a fundamental miscarriage of justice. See Harris, 489 U.S.

at 262 (citing Murray v. Carrier, 477 U.S. 478, 485, 495 (1986)). 

Through his federal habeas corpus petition, petitioner challenges an adverse prison

disciplinary finding. The California Supreme Court ultimately denied the claim, citing to Dexter. 

Respondents argue that, by failing to exhaust available administrative remedies, petitioner

defaulted on the claim and, as a result, this court cannot review the claim. Respondents do not

state in their motion to dismiss which administrative procedures petitioner failed to exhaust. The

court presumes that respondents contend that petitioner failed to present his claim at all three

levels of administrative review provided under California regulations to inmates with grievances.

While petitioner only specifically references the first and second levels of administrative review

in his petition, in his opposition to respondents’ motion petitioner attaches the November 2, 2005,

director’s level review denying his claim. Thus, it is clear that petitioner exhausted all three

levels of administrative review concerning his grievance. 

1

Because petitioner did not default the claim in state court, this court is not barred

from reviewing the claim in the context of the instant federal petition. Respondents’ motion to

dismiss should be denied. 

Based on the foregoing, the undersigned recommends that:

1. Respondents’ motion to dismiss (Doc. 11) be denied; and

2. Respondents be directed to file an answer on the merits.

/ / /

Case 2:06-cv-02877-FCD-CMK Document 12 Filed 05/25/07 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

3

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 20 days

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

with the court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge's Findings

and Recommendations.” Failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right

to appeal. See Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

DATED: May 23, 2007.

______________________________________

CRAIG M. KELLISON

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:06-cv-02877-FCD-CMK Document 12 Filed 05/25/07 Page 3 of 3