Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_02-cv-00675/USCOURTS-caed-2_02-cv-00675-0/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

United States District Court

Eastern District of California 

Terry J. Burton,

Petitioner, No. Civ. S 02-0675 LKK PAN P

vs. Order

D.L. Runnels, Warden, et al.,

Respondents.

-oOoPetitioner is a state prisoner without counsel seeking a

writ of habeas corpus.

Petitioner’s March 28, 2002, petition alleged a single claim 

that his Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment rights were violated by

the use of his un-Mirandized statement to a deputy sheriff. 

June 4, 2003, petitioner amended his petition and the court

served the amended petition and ordered a response. 

August 21, 2003, respondent, construing the amended petition

as one alleging three claims (the Miranda claim, ineffective

Case 2:02-cv-00675-LKK -EFB Document 75 Filed 06/01/05 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

assistance of counsel, and a claim regarding DNA testing), moved

to dismiss arguing the ineffective assistance and DNA testing

claims were untimely and not exhausted. 

In January 28, 2004, findings and recommendations, this

court construed the amended petition to allege the Miranda claim

only, and recommended abeyance to permit petitioner to exhaust

any ineffective assistance and DNA testing claims. The district

court adopted the recommendations March 12, 2004, and the case

was abeyed with instructions to petitioner to move for leave to

amend once exhaustion was complete.

Presently before the court is petitioner’s February 22,

2005, motion for leave to file a second-amended petition. 

Respondent opposed April 15, 2005, and petitioner filed and

served a reply April 18, 2005.

The proposed second-amended petition includes four claims: 

(1) the Miranda claim; (2) a claim of ineffective assistance of

counsel based on 12 sub-claims (A) through (L); (3) a claim

regarding DNA testing; and (4) a claim regarding the trial

court’s failure to excuse two jurors for cause based on implied

bias. 

Respondent argues, and petitioner concedes, that Claim 4 and

sub-claims 2(I), (J), and (L) were not presented to the

California Supreme Court. 

Petitioner argues the court should deem the ineffective

assistance sub-claims exhausted because he pursues a single claim

he received ineffective assistance of counsel, based on numerous

Case 2:02-cv-00675-LKK -EFB Document 75 Filed 06/01/05 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

factual predicates, and the allegations in sub-claims(I), (J) and

(L) do not fundamentally alter the claim presented to the

California Supreme Court. 

Exhaustion of available state judicial remedies ordinarily

is a prerequisite to obtaining federal habeas corpus relief. 28

U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1)(A); Picard v. Connor, 404 U.S. 270 (1971). A

petitioner satisfies the exhaustion requirement if: (1) he has

“fairly presented” his federal claim to the highest state court

with jurisdiction to consider it, Anderson v. Harless, 459 U.S. 4

(1982); or (2) he demonstrates no state remedy remains available. 

Harmon v. Ryan, 959 F.2d 1457 (9th Cir. 1992). “Exhaustion

requires the state prisoner give the state courts a ‘fair

opportunity to act’ on each of his claims before he presents

those claims in a federal habeas petition.” Kelly v. Small, 315

F.3d 1063 (9th Cir. 2003), quoting O’Sullivan v. Boerckel, 526

U.S. 838, 844 (1999). “The state prisoner must describe in the

state proceedings both the operative facts and the federal legal

theory on which his claim is based so that the state courts have

a ‘fair opportunity’ to apply controlling legal principles to the

facts bearing upon his constitutional claim.” Id. (internal

quotations omitted).

By failing to apprise the California Supreme Court of facts

alleged in sub-claims 2(I), (J) and (L) of his ineffective

assistance claim, he deprived that court of a fair opportunity to

act based on such facts. Kelly, 315 F.3d at 1068 (finding habeas

petitioner must present each “failure” raised as a ground for a

Case 2:02-cv-00675-LKK -EFB Document 75 Filed 06/01/05 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

finding of ineffective assistance in state court to meet

exhaustion requirement). As to Claim 4, petitioner’s reference

in his state court petition to counsel’s failure to object

regarding the implied bias of two jurors did not exhaust his

independent claim of constitutional error based on the court’s

seating of such jurors. See Rose v. Palmateer, 395 F.3d 1108,

1111-12 (9th Cir. 2005) (claim counsel was ineffective for

failing to object to introduction of confession did not exhaust

claim that use of the confession as an independent constitutional

claim), citing Kelly, 315 F.3d at 1068 n. 2.

Petitioner requests the court again abey this proceeding to

permit him to exhaust these claims. The court will not. 

Petitioner offers no excuse for his continued piecemeal

litigation, both in the California Supreme Court and here. 

Rhines v. Weber, U.S. , 125 S.Ct. 1528 (2005) (federal

court has discretion to stay habeas petition to permit exhaustion

if petitioner shows good cause for his failure to present his

claims to the state courts). 

Accordingly, the court hereby orders that:

1. Petitioner’s February 22, 2005, motion for leave to file

a second amended petition is granted in part.

2. The Clerk of Court shall file petitioner’s proposed

pleading as petitioner’s second amended petition, dated the date

of this order. Claim 4 and sub-claims (2)(I), (J) and (L)

therein are stricken. Respondent shall respond to the second

amended petition within 30 days.

Case 2:02-cv-00675-LKK -EFB Document 75 Filed 06/01/05 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

Dated: May 31, 2005. 

 /s/ Peter A. Nowinski 

 PETER A. NOWINSKI

 Magistrate Judge

Case 2:02-cv-00675-LKK -EFB Document 75 Filed 06/01/05 Page 5 of 5