Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-00999/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-00999-3/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Jeanne Woodford
Respondent
Royal Bernard Wright
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

 Mr. Marshall is hereby substituted as respondent for Jeanne Woodford. See Mot. at 1

n.1; Fed. R. Civ. P. 25(d).

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ROYAL BERNARD WRIGHT,

Petitioner, No. CIV-S-06-0999 GEB KJM P 

vs.

JOHN MARSHALL, 

1

Respondent. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

 /

Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with an application for writ of

habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Petitioner is currently serving a sentence of twelve years’

imprisonment in the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) for second

degree robbery. Respondent has filed a motion asking that this matter be dismissed for failure to

exhaust state court remedies as required by 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(1). 

The exhaustion of state court remedies is a prerequisite to the granting of a

petition for writ of habeas corpus. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(1). A petitioner satisfies the exhaustion

requirement by providing the highest court in his or her state with a full and fair opportunity to

/////

Case 2:06-cv-00999-RJT Document 13 Filed 02/05/08 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

consider all claims before presenting them to the federal court. Picard v. Connor, 404 U.S. 270,

276 (1971); Middleton v. Cupp, 768 F.2d 1083, 1086 (9th Cir. 1986). 

The state court has had an opportunity to rule on the merits when the petitioner

has “fairly presented” the claim to that court. The fair presentation requirement is met where the

petitioner has described the operative facts and legal theory on which his claim is based. Picard,

404 U.S. at 277-78. Generally, it is “not enough that all the facts necessary to support the federal

claim were before the state courts . . . or that a somewhat similar state-law claim was made.”

Anderson v. Harless, 459 U.S. 4, 6 (1982). Instead, 

[i]f 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 v. Henry, 513 U.S. 364, 365 (1995). Accordingly, “a claim for relief in habeas corpus

must include reference to a specific federal constitutional guarantee, as well as a statement of the

facts which entitle the petitioner to relief.” Gray v. Netherland, 518 U.S. 152, 162-63 (1996). 

The court construes petitioner’s only claim in this action as follows: Petitioner

should be allowed to withdraw his guilty plea because he was not granted counsel in connection

with a motion to withdraw his plea and to investigate his counsel’s possible ineffectiveness in

violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. See Pet. at 5. In his petition

for review filed in the California Supreme Court, petitioner raised the following issue: “The

question presented in this case is whether the trial court erred in declining to appoint substitute

counsel to investigate petitioner’s motion to withdraw his plea or to hear that motion.” Resp’t’s

Lodged Doc. 3 at 1. Petitioner also claimed his petition for review should be granted in order to

determine, inter alia, whether petitioner was denied “due process of law under the . . . federal

Constitution[].” Resp’t’s Lodged Doc. 3 at 2. 

/////

Case 2:06-cv-00999-RJT Document 13 Filed 02/05/08 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

3

In light of the foregoing, the court finds that petitioner fairly presented the claim

asserted in this action to the California Supreme Court, and that the California Supreme Court

ruled on that claim. Therefore, petitioner has exhausted state court remedies with respect to the

claim brought in this action and respondent’s motion to dismiss should be denied.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that:

1. Respondent’s April 16, 2007 motion to dismiss be denied; and

2. Respondent be directed to file his answer within sixty days of the adoption of

these findings and recommendations.

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 twenty

days after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written

objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned

“Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Any reply to the objections

shall be served and filed within ten days after service of the objections. The parties are advised

that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District

Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

DATED: February 5, 2008.

1

wrig0999.157

Case 2:06-cv-00999-RJT Document 13 Filed 02/05/08 Page 3 of 3