Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-01592/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-01592-7/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

 The court substitutes the Director of Corrections, petitioner’s current custodian, for 1

Gerald Benito, who was the custodian when the original petition was filed. Fed. R. Civ. P. 25(d). 

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MOSHE ISSAC STEIN, 

Petitioner, No. CIV S-05-1592 GEB KJM P

vs.

DIRECTOR OF CORRECTIONS, et al., 

Respondents . FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 1

 /

Petitioner is a state prison inmate proceeding pro se with a petition for a writ of

habeas corpus challenging his Shasta County convictions for violations of California Penal Code

§§288(a), 314, and 311.11. Respondent has filed a motion to dismiss, arguing that the petition

contains both exhausted and unexhausted claims. 

I. Background

Petitioner was convicted after a court trial and on October 18, 2005, was

sentenced to a term of sixteen years in prison. Lodged Documents (Lodg. Docs.) 1 & 2 at 2.

Petitioner appealed his conviction, arguing that the court erred in denying his

motion to discharge counsel and his motion to represent himself, and that the evidence to support

Case 2:05-cv-01592-GEB -KJM Document 31 Filed 07/08/08 Page 1 of 5
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 two lodged documents assigned the number 4. 2

2

one of the convictions was insufficient. See Lodg. Doc. 3 at i-ii. The Court of Appeal affirmed

the conviction on December 5, 2006. Lodg. Doc. 2.

Petitioner pursued his direct appeal through a petition for review, which raised

only two issues, the denial of petitioner’s motions for new counsel and to represent himself. 

Lodg. Doc. 4 (Petition for Review). The Supreme Court denied review on February 7, 2007. 

Lodg. Doc. 4 (Supreme Court Order).2

The amended petition in this case, filed May 5, 2006, raises five claims:

(1) petitioner was denied his right to a speedy trial; (2) petitioner was denied his right of access to

Australian consular officers; (3) petitioner’s statements to the police were not voluntary and the

prosecution failed to demonstrate compliance with Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966);

(4) the trial court erred in denying petitioner’s motion to replace counsel; and (5) the trial court

erred in denying petitioner’s request to represent himself.

This court originally recommended that the amended petition be dismissed

because petitioner’s appeal was pending. Petitioner filed objections after the Supreme Court

denied his petition for review, at which point this court vacated its recommendation and directed

respondent to address the amended petition. 

II. Analysis

Respondent argues that only claims four and five of the instant petition are

exhausted because only these claims were included in the direct appeal of petitioner’s conviction. 

Petitioner contends that claims one, two and three were exhausted in a petition denied by the

California Supreme Court on July 20, 2005. Opp’n at 1. Respondent counters that this petition

must have been filed while petitioner was awaiting trial, because he was not convicted until

September 26, 2005, and not sentenced until October 2005, and does not satisfy the exhaustion

requirement. Reply at 2; see Lodg. Doc. 1. This court takes judicial notice of the publicly

Case 2:05-cv-01592-GEB -KJM Document 31 Filed 07/08/08 Page 2 of 5
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

available docket in Stein v. Superior Court, Shasta County, C049777 (Cal. Ct. App. 3d Dist.),

which shows that on May 17, 2005, petitioner filed a petition for a writ of mandate or

prohibition in the Court of Appeal; the petition was denied on May 19, 2005. The docket for

Stein v. Superior Court, S134823 (Cal. S. Ct.), reflects that on June 6, 2005, petitioner filed a

petition for review of the Court of Appeal’s denial; this was denied on July 20, 2005. See Doe v.

Mann, 415 F.3d 1038, 1040 n.3 (9th Cir. 2005) (judicial notice of state court records). 

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). 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. There are three elements to the fair presentation

requirement:

A petitioner fairly and fully presents a claim to the state court for

purposes of satisfying the exhaustion requirement if he presents the

claim: (1) to the proper forum, (2) through the proper vehicle, and

(3) by providing the proper factual and legal basis for the claim. A

petitioner must alert the state courts to the fact that he is asserting a

federal claim in order to fairly and fully present the legal basis of

the claim.

Insyxiengmay v. Morgan, 403 F.3d 657, 668 (9th Cir. 2005). 

In Castille v. Peoples, 489 U.S. 346, 348, 351-52 (1989), the Supreme Court

 considered whether a claim brought in a petition for allocatur before the Pennsylvania Supreme

Court could satisfy the requirement of fair presentation because of the discretionary nature of

allocatur review in Pennsylvania. The court held that the fair presentation requirement has not

been met “where the claim has been presented for the first and only time in a procedural context

in which its merits will not be considered unless there are special and important reasons

therefor.” Id. at 351 (internal citation & quotation omitted). 

Case 2:05-cv-01592-GEB -KJM Document 31 Filed 07/08/08 Page 3 of 5
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

In Pitchess v. Davis, the Supreme Court said:

In California it is well established that a writ of prohibition is an

extraordinary writ, whose use for pre-trial review is normally

limited to ‘questions of first impression and general importance. 

The denial of an application for writ of prohibition does not

constitute, and cannot be fairly read as, an adjudication on the

merits of the claim presented. Inclusion of an asserted point of

error in a denied pretrial application for writ of prohibition does

not bar raising the same points on post-trial direct appeal.

. . . .In the instant case, denial by state appellate courts of

respondent’s applications cannot be fairly taken to be an

adjudication of the merits of his claim and full post-trial appellate

review is available if respondent is convicted. 

421 U.S. 482, 488 (1975). Under this authority, petitioner has not exhausted the first three

claims of his petition. 

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). A mixed petition

containing both exhausted and unexhausted claims must be dismissed.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that respondent’s motion to

dismiss (docket no. 25) be granted, that petitioner be ordered to file a second amended petition

containing only exhausted claims, and that respondent be ordered to respond to any second

amended petition. 

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

/////

/////

/////

Case 2:05-cv-01592-GEB -KJM Document 31 Filed 07/08/08 Page 4 of 5
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

5

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: July 7, 2008. 

2

stei1592.157

Case 2:05-cv-01592-GEB -KJM Document 31 Filed 07/08/08 Page 5 of 5