Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-00070/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-00070-1/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

 Acting Warden Ken Clark is substituted as respondent. See Rule 2(a), Rules

Governing § 2254 Proceedings; Fed. R. Civ. P. 25(d).

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DOUGLAS K. COOK,

Petitioner, No. CIV S-06-0070 GEB EFB P

vs.

KEN CLARK, Acting Warden,

Respondent. ORDER

 /

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

U.S.C. § 2254. Respondent1

 moves to dismiss upon the ground that petitioner failed to exhaust

available state remedies. Petitioner opposes.

On March 21, 2001, following a jury trial in the Sacramento County Superior Court,

petitioner was convicted of one count of forcible oral copulation and three counts of inflicting

corporal injury on a co-habitant. Cal. Pen Code §§ 288a(c)(2), 273.5(a). 

Petitioner appealed claiming the following as trial error: (1) permitting introduction of

expert testimony about battered women’s syndrome; (2) instructing the jury it could consider

defendant’s prior uncharged bad acts of sexual abuse; (3) failing to instruct the jury it must

unanimously find petitioner guilty. The appellate court affirmed.

Case 2:06-cv-00070-GEB-CHS Document 14 Filed 11/14/06 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

2

Petitioner filed a petition for review in the California Supreme Court seeking review of

the denial of the claim that the court erred by permitting expert testimony about domestic abuse

and rape. That court denied review.

Petitioner did not file any state habeas petitions. 

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

exhausted and unexhausted claims, 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).

In his federal habeas petition, petitioner claims: (1) the trial court abused its discretion by

allowing the prosecution to elicit irrelevant and highly prejudicial expert testimony; (2) the trial

court erred by instructing the jury it could consider uncharged prior bad acts; (3) the evidence

was insufficient to support the conviction on count six; (4) the evidence was insufficient to

support the conviction on count seven. Petitioner has not presented to any state court his claims

Case 2:06-cv-00070-GEB-CHS Document 14 Filed 11/14/06 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

2

 On habeas, the court considers the evidence in the light most favorable to the

prosecution to determine if any rational trier of fact could find the elements, as defined by state

law, beyond a reasonable doubt. Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 324 (1979). 

3

that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction of counts six and seven. The petition

therefore is mixed and unless the court grants petitioner’s request for a stay, the petition must be

dismissed without prejudice.

To decide whether to grant petitioner’s request to stay this action while petitioner

exhausts his third and fourth claims, the court must determine whether petitioner had good cause

for his failure to exhaust, whether the unexhausted claim is potentially meritorious and whether

petitioner engaged in intentionally dilatory litigation tactics. Rhines v. Weber, 544 U.S. 269,

277-278 (2005). Petitioner asserts that he “gave the State of California judicial notice of intent

to satisfy the exhaustion requirements, and they must have been surely alerted to this fact that

Cook was giving them this opportunity to correct alleged violations.” Petition at 1. Petitioner’s

assertion does not change the nature of the claims he presented to the state courts, none of which

suggested they should review the sufficiency of the evidence. He offers no reason for failing to

raise the claims. Furthermore, the court has read the direct appeal opinion and finds that in light

of the highly deferential standard enunciated in Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 324 (1979),2

petitioner has an exceedingly low chance of success. Therefore, even though there is no

evidence of bad faith, the court finds that stay and abeyance is not warranted in this action.

Accordingly, it is hereby ordered that the January 11, 2006, petition is dismissed. 

Petitioner has 30 days from the date this order is served to file a first-amended petition omitting

the unexhausted claims. The petition must bear the case number assigned to this action and be

styled, “First Amended Petition.” Petitioner’s failure to comply with this order will result in a

recommendation that this action be dismissed without prejudice.

Dated: November 13, 2006.

Case 2:06-cv-00070-GEB-CHS Document 14 Filed 11/14/06 Page 3 of 3