Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-06210/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-06210-0/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

27

28

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

HAROLD WALKER, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

v. )

)

)

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF )

CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF FRESNO, )

)

Respondent. )

)

___________________________________ )

CV F 04-6210 OWW WMW HC

FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATIONS RE

DISMISSAL OF PETITION

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

corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, which was filed September 7, 2004.

Rule 4 of the Rules Governing § 2254 Cases requires the court to make a preliminary

review of each petition for writ of habeas corpus. The court must dismiss a petition "[i]f it

plainly appears from the face of the petition . . . that the petitioner is not entitled to relief in

the district court." Rule 4 of the Rules Governing 2254 Cases; see, also, Hendricks v.

Vasquez, 908 F.2d 490 (9th Cir. 1990).

Case 1:04-cv-06210-OWW -WMW Document 9 Filed 09/13/05 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

27

28 2

DISCUSSION

Relief by way of a petition for writ of habeas corpus extends to a person in custody

pursuant to the judgment of a state court if the custody is in violation of the Constitution or

laws or treaties of the United States. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a); 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c)(3); Williams

v. Taylor, 120 S.Ct. 1495, 1504 fn.7 (2000). Petitioner asserts that he suffered violations of

his rights as guaranteed by the United States Constitution. In addition, the conviction

challenged arises out of the Fresno County Superior Court, which is located within the

jurisdiction of this court. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a); 2241(d). Accordingly, the curt has

jurisdiction over the action. 

On April 24, 1996, Congress enacted the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty

Act of 1996 (“AEDPA”), which applies to all petitions for writ of habeas corpus filed after

its enactment. Lindh v. Murphy, 521 U.S. 320, (1997), cert. denied, 522 U.S. 1008 (1997);

Jeffries v. Wood, 114 F.3d 1484, 1499 (9

th Cir. 1997) (quoting Drinkard v. Johnson, 97 F.3d

751, 769 (5th Cir.1996), cert. denied, 520 U.S. 1107(1997), overruled on other grounds by

Lindh v. Murphy, 521 U.S. 320(1997) (holding AEDPA only applicable to cases filed after

statute's enactment). The instant petition was filed on September 7, 2004, after the

enactment of the AEDPA. Thus, it is governed by the provisions of the AEDPA. 

A petitioner who is in state custody and wishes to collaterally challenge his

conviction by a petition for writ of habeas corpus must exhaust state judicial remedies. 28

U.S.C. § 2254(b)(1). The exhaustion doctrine is based on comity to the state court and gives

the state court the initial opportunity to correct the state's alleged constitutional deprivations. 

Coleman v. Thompson, 501 U.S. 722, 731, 111 S.Ct. 2546, 2554-55 (1991); Rose v. Lundy,

455 U.S. 509, 518, 102 S.Ct. 1198, 1203 (1982); Buffalo v. Sunn, 854 F.2d 1158, 1163 (9

th

Cir. 1988). 

A petitioner can satisfy the exhaustion requirement by providing the highest state

court with a full and fair opportunity to consider each claim before presenting it to the federal

Case 1:04-cv-06210-OWW -WMW Document 9 Filed 09/13/05 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

27

28 3

court. Picard v. Connor, 404 U.S. 270, 276, 92 S.Ct. 509, 512 (1971); Johnson v. Zenon, 88

F.3d 828, 829 (9th Cir. 1996). A federal court will find that the highest state court was given

a full and fair opportunity to hear a claim if the petitioner has presented the highest state

court with the claim's factual and legal basis. Duncan v. Henry, 513 U.S. 364, 365, 115 S.Ct.

887, 888 (1995) (legal basis); Kenney v. Tamayo-Reyes, 504 U.S. 1, 112 S.Ct. 1715, 1719

(1992) (factual basis). Additionally, the petitioner must have specifically told the state court

that he was raising a federal constitutional claim. Duncan, 513 U.S. at 365-66, 115 S.Ct. at

888; Keating v. Hood, 133 F.3d 1240, 1241 (9

th Cir.1998). For example, if a petitioner

wishes to claim that the trial court violated his due process rights “he must say so, not only in

federal court but in state court.” Duncan, 513 U.S. at 366, 115 S.Ct. at 888.The court must

dismiss a petition that contains unexhausted claims, even if it also contains exhausted claims. 

Rose, 455 U.S. at 521-22, 102 S.Ct. at 1205; Calderon v. United States Dist. Court

(Gordon), 107 F.3d 756, 760 (9th Cir. 1997) (en banc) cert. denied, 118 S.Ct. 265 (1997).

In the present case, Petitioner states in his petition that he has not been sentenced for

the convictions he seeks to challenge. He states that he has not appealed from his judgment

of conviction, but rather pursued a petition for writ of habeas corpus. Petitioner states that

this petition was denied by the California Court of Appeal, The court finds, therefore, that

this petition contains unexhausted claims. Accordingly, this petition must be dismissed

under Rose v. Lundy.

Based on the foregoing, the court HEREBY RECOMMENDS that this petition be

dismissed without prejudice and that the Clerk of the Court be directed to enter judgment for

Respondent and to close this case.

These Findings and Recommendation are submitted to the assigned United States

District Court Judge, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. section 636 (b)(1)(B) and Rule

72-304 of the Local Rules of Practice for the United States District Court, Eastern District of

California. Within thirty (30) days after being served with a copy, any party may file written

Case 1:04-cv-06210-OWW -WMW Document 9 Filed 09/13/05 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

27

28 4

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

captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendation.” Replies to the

objections shall be served and filed within ten (10) court days (plus three days if served by

mail) after service of the objections. The court will then review the Magistrate Judge’s

ruling pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(C). 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).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 13, 2005 /s/ William M. Wunderlich 

mmkd34 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:04-cv-06210-OWW -WMW Document 9 Filed 09/13/05 Page 4 of 4