Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_24-cv-01221/USCOURTS-caed-1_24-cv-01221-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Carlos Arce
Respondent
William Blowheart Lee
Petitioner

Document Text:

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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

WILLIAM BLOWHEART LEE,

Petitioner,

v.

CARLOS ARCE, Warden,

Respondent.

No. 1:24-cv-01221-SKO (HC)

ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT 

TO ASSIGN DISTRICT JUDGE

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 

TO DISMISS PETITION

[TWENTY-ONE DAY DEADLINE]

Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 

U.S.C. § 2254. He filed the instant petition on October 4, 2024, challenging his 2021 conviction 

in Kern County Superior Court of second-degree murder and shooting at an inhabited dwelling. 

The petition appears to be unexhausted1; therefore, the Court will recommend the petition be 

dismissed without prejudice to refiling once exhaustion is complete.

DISCUSSION

A. Preliminary Review of Petition

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. 

1 District courts can sua sponte raise the procedural requirement of exhaustion of state remedies. 

Granberry v. Greer, 481 U.S. 129, 133-134 (1987).

Case 1:24-cv-01221-KES-SKO Document 8 Filed 10/15/24 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

The Advisory Committee Notes to Rule 8 indicate that the court may dismiss a petition for writ of 

habeas corpus, either on its own motion under Rule 4, pursuant to the respondent’s motion to 

dismiss, or after an answer to the petition has been filed. Herbst v. Cook, 260 F.3d 1039 (9th Cir.

2001). 

B. Exhaustion

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

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 court. 

Duncan v. Henry, 513 U.S. 364, 365 (1995). 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, 513 U.S. at 365 (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. In Duncan, the United States Supreme 

Court reiterated the rule as follows:

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, 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 

Case 1:24-cv-01221-KES-SKO Document 8 Filed 10/15/24 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

(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 “selfevident," 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. Hiivala v. Wood, 195 F3d 1098, 1106-07 (9th Cir. 1999); Johnson 

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

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. 

Lyons v. Crawford, 232 F.3d 666, 668-669 (9th Cir. 2000) (italics added), as amended by Lyons 

v. Crawford, 247 F.3d 904, 904-5 (9th Cir. 2001).

Petitioner raises several claims of ineffective assistance of counsel. He states he has only 

recently raised these claims by habeas petition in the superior court. (Doc. 1 at 3.) Petitioner states 

the petition was denied on September 9, 2024. (Doc. 1 at 3.) Thus, it appears Petitioner has not 

fully exhausted his state remedies by presenting his claims to the appellate court and to the 

California Supreme Court prior to filing the instant petition. The Court cannot consider a petition 

that is unexhausted. Rose v. Lundy, 455 U.S. 509, 521-22 (1982). 

ORDER

Accordingly, the Clerk of Court is directed to assign a district judge to this case.

RECOMMENDATION

For the foregoing reasons, the Court RECOMMENDS the petition be DISMISSED 

WITHOUT PREJUDICE to refiling the petition once exhaustion is completed.

This Findings and Recommendation is submitted to the United States District Court Judge 

assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(B) and Rule 304 of the 

Local Rules of Practice for the United States District Court, Eastern District of California. Within 

twenty-one (21) days after being served with a copy of this Findings and Recommendation, a 

party may file written objections with the Court and serve a copy on all parties. Id. The document 

should be captioned, “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendation” and shall 

not exceed fifteen (15) pages, except by leave of court with good cause shown. The Court will not 

consider exhibits attached to the Objections. To the extent a party wishes to refer to any 

Case 1:24-cv-01221-KES-SKO Document 8 Filed 10/15/24 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

exhibit(s), the party should reference the exhibit in the record by its CM/ECF document and page 

number, when possible, or otherwise reference the exhibit with specificity. Any pages filed in 

excess of the fifteen (15) page limitation may be disregarded by the District Judge when 

reviewing these Findings and Recommendations pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(C). The 

parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may result in the waiver 

of rights on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 838-39 (9th Cir. 2014). This 

recommendation is not an order that is immediately appealable to the Ninth Circuit Court of 

Appeals. Any notice of appeal pursuant to Rule 4(a)(1), Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, 

should not be filed until entry of the District Court's judgment.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 14, 2024 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto .

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:24-cv-01221-KES-SKO Document 8 Filed 10/15/24 Page 4 of 4