Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-00862/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-00862-2/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

ALLEN D. QUEEN, No. CIV S-070862-GEB-CMK-P

Petitioner, 

vs. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

DARREL ADAMS, 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. 8). Petitioner, having been served a copy of the motion on June 18, 2007, has not

filed an opposition. 

Petitioner alleges in his petition that he received ineffective assistance of trial

counsel, the trial judge erred by failing to recuse himself from the trial, incorrect use of his prior

convictions, and a due process violation for mishandling verdict forms. Respondent brings this

motion to dismiss on the grounds that two of petitioner’s claims (claims one and four) are

unexhausted and the remaining two claims (claims two and three) fail to state a federal claim.

/ / /

Case 2:07-cv-00862-GEB-CMK Document 14 Filed 01/14/08 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

2

DISCUSSION

Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases allows a district court to

dismiss a petition if it “plainly appears from the petition and any attached exhibits that the

petitioner is not entitled to relief in the district court . . . .” Rule 4 of the Rules Governing

Section 2254 Cases. The Ninth Circuit has allowed respondents to file a motion to dismiss in

lieu of an answer if the motion attacks the pleadings for failing to exhaust state remedies or being

in violation of the state's procedural rules. See, e.g., O'Bremski v. Maass, 915 F.2d 418, 420 (9th

Cir. 1990) (using Rule 4 to evaluate motion to dismiss petition for failure to exhaust state

remedies); White v. Lewis, 874 F.2d 599, 602-03 (9th Cir. 1989) (using Rule 4 as procedural

grounds to review motion to dismiss for state procedural default); Hillery v. Pulley, 533 F. Supp.

1189, 1194 & n. 12 (E.D. Cal. 1982) (same). Thus, a respondent can file a motion to dismiss

after the court orders a response, and the Court should use Rule 4 standards to review the motion.

See Hillery, 533 F. Supp. at 1194 & n. 12.

Exhaustion

Under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b), the exhaustion of available state remedies is required

before the federal court can grant a claim presented in a habeas corpus case. See Rose v. Lundy,

455 U.S. 509 (1982); see also Kelly v. Small, 315 F.3d 1063, 1066 (9th Cir. 2003); Hunt v.

Pliler, 336 F.3d 839 (9th Cir. 2003). “A petitioner may satisfy the exhaustion requirement in

two ways: (1) by providing the highest state court with an opportunity to rule on the merits of the

claim . . .; or (2) by showing that at the time the petitioner filed the habeas petition in federal

court no state remedies are available to the petitioner and the petitioner has not deliberately

by-passed the state remedies.” Batchelor v. Cupp , 693 F.2d 859, 862 (9th Cir. 1982) (citations

omitted). The exhaustion doctrine is based on a policy of federal and state comity, designed to

give state courts the initial opportunity to correct alleged constitutional deprivations. See Picard

v. Connor, 404 U.S. 270, 275 (1971); see also Rose, 455 U.S. at 518. Regardless of whether the

claim was raised on direct appeal or in a post-conviction proceeding, the exhaustion doctrine

Case 2:07-cv-00862-GEB-CMK Document 14 Filed 01/14/08 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

requires that each claim be fairly presented to the state’s highest court. See Castille v. Peoples,

489 U.S. 346 (1989).

In this case, petitioner has not presented all of his claims to California Supreme

Court, either on direct appeal or on habeas review. His petition for review to the California

Supreme Court on direct appeal exhausted his claims regarding the trial judge’s refusal to recuse

himself and the use of his prior convictions, but he did not raise an ineffective assistance of

counsel claim or a denial of due process claim. In addition, his habeas petition filed in this case

specifically states that other than a direct appeal, he has not filed any other petitions for relief. 

Therefore, claims one and four are not exhausted and respondents’ motion to dismiss these

claims should be granted. 

Failure to State Federal Claim

A writ of habeas corpus is available under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a) only on the basis

of some transgression of federal law binding on the state courts. Middleton v. Cupp, 768 F.2d

1083, 1085 (9th Cir. 1985); Gutierrez v. Griggs, 695 F.2d 1195, 1197 (9th Cir. 1983). It is

unavailable for alleged error in the interpretation or application of state law. Middleton v. Cupp,

768 F.2d at 1085; see also Lincoln v. Sunn, 807 F.2d 805, 814 (9th Cir. 1987); Givens v.

Housewright, 786 F.2d 1378, 1381 (9th Cir. 1986). Habeas corpus cannot be utilized to try state

issues de novo. Milton v. Wainwright, 407 U.S. 371, 377 (1972). 

The Supreme Court has reiterated the standards of review for a federal habeas

court. Estelle v. McGuire, 502 U.S. 62 (1991). In Estelle v. McGuire, the Supreme Court reemphasized that “federal habeas corpus relief does not lie for error in state law.” Id. at 67 (citing

Lewis v. Jeffers, 497 U.S. 764, 780 (1990), and Pulley v. Harris, 465 U.S. 37, 41 (1984) (federal

courts may not grant habeas relief where the sole ground presented involves a perceived error of

state law, unless said error is so egregious as to amount to a violation of the Due Process or

Equal Protection clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment)). 

/ / /

Case 2:07-cv-00862-GEB-CMK Document 14 Filed 01/14/08 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

However, a “claim of error based upon a right not specifically guaranteed by the

Constitution may nonetheless form a ground for federal habeas corpus relief where its impact so

infects the entire trial that the resulting conviction violates the defendant’s right to due process.” 

Hines v. Enomoto, 658 F.2d 667, 673 (9th Cir. 1981) (citing Quigg v. Crist, 616 F.2d 1107 (9th

Cir. 1980)); see also Lisenba v. California, 314 U.S. 219, 236 (1941). In order to raise such a

claim in a federal habeas corpus petition, the “error alleged must have resulted in a complete

miscarriage of justice.” Hill v. United States, 368 U.S. 424, 428 (1962); Crisafi v. Oliver, 396

F.2d 293, 294-95 (9th Cir. 1968); Chavez v. Dickson, 280 F.2d 727, 736 (9th Cir. 1960). 

In this case, petitioner claims that it was error for the trial judge not to recuse

himself and his previous convictions were used erroneously. Petitioner does not specify what

federally protected right was violated by these actions. In support of his claim that the trial judge

should have recused himself, he states “Judge Murray was a witness to case (C-046852)

committed in his own courtroom prior to sentencing on case (C-045498).” (Petition at 5.) In

support of his claim that his previous convictions were used improperly, he states “My 1996

conviction was a plea bargain with 2 felonies in 1 conviction.” (Petition at 6.) Petitioner has not

provided any facts which would show that the errors were so egregious as to amount to a

violation of the Due Process or Equal Protection clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment. 

Therefore, respondents’ motion to dismiss these claims should be granted.

Failure to Oppose Motion

Petitioner failed to file an opposition to respondents’ motion to dismiss. Pursuant

to Local Rule 78-230 (m), failure “to file opposition or to file a statement of no opposition may

be deemed a waiver of any opposition to the granting of the motion and may result in the

imposition of sanctions.” Therefore, the motion to dismiss should be granted on the grounds that

petitioner waived any opposition to the granting of the motion. 

/ / /

/ / /

Case 2:07-cv-00862-GEB-CMK Document 14 Filed 01/14/08 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

CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, the undersigned recommends that respondents’ motion to

dismiss be granted and this case be dismissed.

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: January 11, 2008

______________________________________

CRAIG M. KELLISON

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:07-cv-00862-GEB-CMK Document 14 Filed 01/14/08 Page 5 of 5