Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-01250/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-01250-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Isaac Bellinger
Petitioner
On Habeas Corpus
Respondent

Document Text:

1

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma 

pauperis with a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 

U.S.C. § 2254. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c)(1), Petitioner has 

consented to the jurisdiction of the United States Magistrate Judge 

to conduct all further proceedings in the case, including the entry 

of final judgment, by manifesting Petitioner’s consent in writing 

signed by Petitioner and filed by Petitioner on September 3, 2013. 

Pending before the Court is the petition, which was filed on August 

12, 2013.

///

ISAAC BELLINGER,

 Petitioner,

v.

ON HABEAS CORPUS,

Respondent.

Case No. 1:13-cv-01250-BAM-HC

ORDER TO PETITIONER TO SHOW CAUSE

IN THIRTY (30) DAYS WHY THE 

PETITION SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED 

FOR PETITIONER’S FAILURE TO EXHAUST 

STATE COURT REMEDIES (DOC. 1)

FILING DEADLINE: THIRTY (30) DAYS

Case 1:13-cv-01250-SKO Document 5 Filed 10/07/13 Page 1 of 6
2

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

II. Exhaustion of State Court Remedies

A petitioner who is in state custody and wishes to challenge 

collaterally a 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 (1991); Rose v. Lundy, 455 U.S. 509, 518 (1982); Buffalo v. 

Sunn, 854 F.2d 1158, 1162-63 (9th Cir. 1988). 

A petitioner can satisfy the exhaustion requirement by 

providing the highest state court with the necessary jurisdiction a 

full and fair opportunity to consider each claim before presenting 

it to the federal court, and demonstrating that no state remedy 

remains available. Picard v. Connor, 404 U.S. 270, 275-76 (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 (1995) (legal basis); Kenney v. 

Tamayo-Reyes, 504 U.S. 1, 9-10 (1992), superceded by statute as

stated in Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362 (2000) (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; Lyons v. Crawford, 232 F.3d 666, 669 

(9th Cir. 2000), amended, 247 F.3d 904 (9th Cir. 2001); Hiivala v. 

Wood, 195 F.3d 1098, 1106 (9th Cir. 1999); Keating v. Hood, 133 F.3d 

1240, 1241 (9th Cir. 1998). In Duncan, the United States Supreme 

Court reiterated the rule as follows:

Case 1:13-cv-01250-SKO Document 5 Filed 10/07/13 Page 2 of 6
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

27

28

In Picard v. Connor, 404 U.S. 270, 275...(1971),

we said that exhaustion of state remedies requires that

petitioners "fairly presen[t]" federal claims to the

state courts in order to give the State the

"'opportunity to pass upon and correct= alleged

violations of the prisoners' federal rights" (some

internal quotation marks omitted). If state courts are

to be given the opportunity to correct alleged violations

of prisoners' federal rights, they must surely be

alerted to the fact that the prisoners are asserting

claims under the United States Constitution. If a

habeas petitioner wishes to claim that an evidentiary

ruling at a state court trial denied him the due

process of law guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment,

he must say so, not only in federal court, but in state

court. 

Duncan, 513 U.S. at 365-366. The Ninth Circuit examined the rule 

further in Lyons v. Crawford, 232 F.3d 666, 668-69 (9th Cir. 2000), 

as amended by Lyons v. Crawford, 247 F.3d 904, 904-05 (9th Cir. 

2001), stating: 

Our rule is that a state prisoner has not "fairly

presented" (and thus exhausted) his federal claims

in state court unless he specifically indicated to

that court that those claims were based on federal law.

See, Shumway v. Payne, 223 F.3d 982, 987-88 (9th Cir.

2000). Since the Supreme Court's decision in Duncan,

this court has held that the petitioner must make the

federal basis of the claim explicit either by citing

federal law or the decisions of federal courts, even

if the federal basis is "self-evident," Gatlin v. Madding,

189 F.3d 882, 889 (9th Cir. 1999) (citing Anderson v.

Harless, 459 U.S. 4, 7... (1982), or the underlying

claim would be decided under state law on the same

considerations that would control resolution of the claim

on federal grounds, see, e.g., Hiivala v. Wood, 195 

F.3d 1098, 1106-07 (9th Cir. 1999); Johnson v. Zenon,

88 F.3d 828, 830-31 (9th Cir. 1996); Crotts, 73 F.3d 

at 865.

...

In Johnson, we explained that the petitioner must alert

the state court to the fact that the relevant claim is a

federal one without regard to how similar the state and

federal standards for reviewing the claim may be or how

obvious the violation of federal law is.

Case 1:13-cv-01250-SKO Document 5 Filed 10/07/13 Page 3 of 6
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

Lyons v. Crawford, 232 F.3d 666, 668-69 (9th Cir. 2000), as amended 

by Lyons v. Crawford, 247 F.3d 904, 904-05 (9th Cir. 2001).

Where none of a petitioner=s claims has been presented to the 

highest state court as required by the exhaustion doctrine, the 

Court must dismiss the petition. Raspberry v. Garcia, 448 F.3d 

1150, 1154 (9th Cir. 2006); Jiminez v. Rice, 276 F.3d 478, 481 (9th 

Cir. 2001). The authority of a court to hold a mixed petition in 

abeyance pending exhaustion of the unexhausted claims has not been 

extended to petitions that contain no exhausted claims. Raspberry, 

448 F.3d at 1154.

Petitioner alleges that he is an inmate of the California 

Substance Abuse Treatment Facility serving a sentence of fifteen 

years to life imposed by the Superior Court of the State of 

California, County of Madera on July 3, 1980, for Petitioner’s 

conviction of second degree murder. (Pet., doc. 1, 1-2.) 

Petitioner is challenging on various due process grounds the 

decision of California’s Board of Parole Hearings (BPH) made after a 

hearing on April 30, 2013, in which the BPH found that Petitioner 

was unsuitable for parole and set his next parole suitability 

hearing for 2016. (Id. at 6, 18, 45-46.) 

Although Petitioner refers to exhaustion of state court 

remedies in various locations in the petition, all of the state 

court proceedings referred to were initiated and closed by a final 

disposition before the decision of April 30, 2013, which constitutes 

the decision resulting in the detention of which Petitioner 

complains. Petitioner does not specifically describe or document 

the proceedings in the state courts in which he exhausted his claim 

concerning the decision in April 2013. Further, a review of the 

Case 1:13-cv-01250-SKO Document 5 Filed 10/07/13 Page 4 of 6
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

27

28

official website of the California courts for cases filed by 

Petitioner reflects no case initiated or pending after the decision 

of April 30, 2013.1 Thus, upon review of the instant petition for 

writ of habeas corpus, it appears that Petitioner has not presented 

his claims concerning the 2013 decision to the California Supreme 

Court. If Petitioner has not presented all of his claims to the 

California Supreme Court, this Court cannot proceed to the merits of 

those claims. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(1). It is possible, however, 

that Petitioner has presented his claims to the California Supreme 

Court but has simply neglected to inform this Court.

Therefore, Petitioner must inform the Court if his claims

concerning the 2013 petition have been presented to the California 

Supreme Court, and, if possible, provide this Court with a copy of 

the petition filed in the California Supreme Court, along with a 

copy of any ruling made by the California Supreme Court. Without 

knowing what claims have been presented to the California Supreme 

Court, this Court is unable to proceed with the merits of the 

petition.

III. Order to Show Cause 

Accordingly, Petitioner is ORDERED to show cause why the 

petition should not be dismissed for Petitioner’s failure to exhaust 

state court remedies. Petitioner is ORDERED to inform the Court 

 

1

Error! Main Document Only.The Court may take judicial notice of facts that are 

capable of accurate and ready determination by resort to sources whose accuracy 

cannot reasonably be questioned, including undisputed information posted on 

official websites. Fed. R. Evid. 201(b); United States v. Bernal-Obeso, 989 F.2d 

331, 333 (9th Cir. 1993); Daniels-Hall v. National Education Association, 629 F.3d 

992, 999 (9th Cir. 2010). It is appropriate to take judicial notice of the docket 

sheet of a California court. White v Martel, 601 F.3d 882, 885 (9th Cir. 2010), 

cert. denied, 131 S.Ct. 332 (2010). The address of the official website of the 

California state courts is www.courts.ca.gov. 

Case 1:13-cv-01250-SKO Document 5 Filed 10/07/13 Page 5 of 6
6

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

what claims concerning the decision of April 30, 2013, have been 

presented to the California Supreme Court no later than thirty (30) 

days after the date of service of this order.

Petitioner is forewarned that failure to follow this order will 

result in dismissal of the petition pursuant to Local Rule 110.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 7, 2013 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:13-cv-01250-SKO Document 5 Filed 10/07/13 Page 6 of 6