Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-00669/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-00669-2/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

ALFREDO J. MONTEON,

Petitioner, No. CIV S-07-0669 GEB EFB P

vs.

BOARD OF PAROLE HEARINGS,

et al.,

Respondents. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

 /

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

U.S.C. § 2254. This action proceeds on the April 9, 2007, petition in which petitioner seeks

relief from the Board of Parole Hearings’s (“Board”) 2004 decision denying parole, which he

claims was made in violation of California Penal Code § 3041, California Code of Regulations §

2402(d), and his constitutional right to due process under the Fourteenth and First Amendments. 

Respondents move to dismiss this action upon the ground petitioner failed to exhaust state

remedies. For the reasons explained below, the court recommends that respondents’ motion be

granted.

////

////

Case 2:07-cv-00669-JLQ Document 10 Filed 02/21/08 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

I. Procedural History

 Petitioner was convicted of first-degree murder and robbery on January 16, 1987, and

sentenced to 25 years to life plus three years. Pet., at 1. Petitioner had a parole hearing and the

Board voted to deny parole on August 26, 2004. Pet., Exs. 14 & 17. 

Petitioner filed a petitions for writs of habeas corpus in Los Angeles Superior Court on

December 27, 2002, and April 7, 2003, regarding the Board’s failure to set a parole date on

March 27, 2002. Pet., Ex. 19. That petition was denied on April 22, 2003. Id. Petitioner filed a

third petition for habeas corpus relief in Los Angeles Superior Court on January 20, 2005, which

was denied on April 11, 2005. Pet., Ex. 20. 

The California Court of Appeal for the Second Appellate District denied petitioner

habeas corpus relief on September 7, 2005, with a citation to In re Rosenkrantz, 29 Cal.4th 616,

667 (2002). Pet., Unnumbered Attach., page 93 of 157. 

The California Supreme Court denied petitioner’s application for habeas corpus relief on

September 27, 2006, with citations to In re Rosenkrantz, 29 Cal.4th 616, 658 (2002) and In re

Dannenberg, 34 Cal.4th 1061, 1084 (2005). Resps.’ Mot. to Dism., Ex. 1.

II. 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

Case 2:07-cv-00669-JLQ Document 10 Filed 02/21/08 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

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). A mixed petition, i.e., one containing

exhausted and unexhausted claims, ordinarily must be dismissed. Rose v. Lundy, 455 U.S. 509,

522 (1982). However, the court may stay a mixed petition to allow a petitioner to present

unexhausted claims to the state courts. Rhines v. Weber, 544 U.S. 269, 277-78 (2005).

III. Analysis

Respondents argue that petitioner failed to present several of his claims in his petition to

the California Supreme Court. They attach a copy of his petition to that court, arguing that the

only claim he presented was that the Board’s 2004 decision finding him unsuitable for parole

violates California Penal Code section 3041 and due process “because it is not supported by

sufficient reliable evidence that petitioner presents a continuing public safety threat.” Resps.’

Mot. to Dism., Ex. 1. In the instant petition, however, petitioner presents three claims: (1) that

the Board’s 2004 decision finding him unsuitable for parole violates California Penal Code

section 3041 and due process “as it is not supported by sufficient reliable evidence that Petitioner

is a continued threat to public safety”; (2) that the Board violated his First Amendment rights;

and, (3) that the Board failed to provide him with a fair and impartial hearing. Petitioner only

presented his claim that the Board’s decision violated California law and due process because it

was unsupported by the evidence to the California Supreme Court. 

The exhibits attached to the petition and the motion to dismiss, together with petitioner’s

opposition to that motion, demonstrate that petitioner has failed to exhaust his state court

remedies except as to his due process challenge to the Board of Prison Terms’ decision denying

the 2004 application for parole. Id. Petitioner has therefore failed to provide the “substance of

his federal habeas corpus claim” to the state courts. Picard v. Connor, 404 U.S. at 278. 

////

Case 2:07-cv-00669-JLQ Document 10 Filed 02/21/08 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

Petitioner has not requested a stay of the proceedings for the purpose of exhausting these

new claims. Instead, petitioner has stated that “should this court deem the last two issues

unexhausted, the petitioner is willing to drop them.” Pet’r’s Opp’n, at 3. 

Accordingly, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that respondent’s August 17, 2007, motion

to dismiss be granted and that petitioner be given leave to file an amended petition within 30

days raising only his exhausted claim. 

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 fourteen 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.” Failure to file objections

within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Turner v.

Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998); Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

Dated: February 21, 2008.

\

Case 2:07-cv-00669-JLQ Document 10 Filed 02/21/08 Page 4 of 4