Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-00565/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-00565-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
John N. Katavich
Respondent
Ernest Edward Smith
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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ERNEST EDWARD SMITH,

Petitioner,

v.

JOHN N. KATAVICH,

Respondent.

Case No. 1:15-cv-00565 MJS (HC)

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION

REGARDING RESPONDENT’S MOTION 

TO DISMISS 

[Doc. 9]

ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT 

TO ASSIGN A DISTRICT COURT JUDGE 

TO THE INSTANT MATTER

Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas 

corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Respondent is represented in this action by 

William K. Kim, of the Office of the Attorney General for the State of California. 

I. BACKGROUND

Petitioner is currently in the custody of the California Department of Corrections 

pursuant to a judgment of the Superior Court of California, County of Fresno, following 

his May 30, 2012 conviction of two counts of assault with a firearm and possession of a 

firearm by a felon. (See, Mot. to Dismiss, Ex. A.) Several enhancements also were found 

true, including use of a firearm and infliction of great bodily injury. Petitioner was 

sentenced to a determinate term of twelve (12) years in prison.

Petitioner appealed the conviction. On February 27, 2014, the California Court of 

Case 1:15-cv-00565-DAD-MJS Document 11 Filed 06/18/15 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

27

28

2

Appeal, Fifth Appellate District affirmed the Judgment. (Mot. to Dismiss, Ex. A.) 

Petitioner then sought review from the California Supreme Court on April 8, 2014. 

(Lodged Doc. 1.) The California Supreme Court summarily denied review on May 14, 

2014. (Lodged Doc. 2.)

Petitioner did not seek collateral relief by way of petitions for writ of habeas 

corpus filed in the California state courts. 

On April 13, 2015, Petitioner filed the instant petition for writ of habeas corpus in 

this Court raising five claims for relief, listed as follows:

1) Violation of the Confrontation Clause by presenting a taped 911 call of a 

non-testifying witness; 

2) Insufficient evidence to support the great bodily injury enhancement; 

3) Ineffective assistance of counsel based on erroneous jury instructions;

4) Use of suggestive pre-trial identification techniques; and 

5) Use of illegally obtained evidence to impeach witnesses. 

(Pet. at 3-11.)

On May 12, 2015, Respondent filed a motion to dismiss based on Petitioner’s 

failure to exhaust all the claims presented in the petition. (Mot. To Dismiss, ECF No. 9.) 

Petitioner did not file an opposition.

II. DISCUSSION

A. Procedural Grounds for Motion to Dismiss

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 

Case 1:15-cv-00565-DAD-MJS Document 11 Filed 06/18/15 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

27

28

3

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). Based on the 

Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases and case law, the Court will review Respondent’s 

motion for dismissal pursuant to its authority under Rule 4.

B. Exhaustion of State Remedies

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); Picard v. Connor, 404 U.S. 

270, 276 (1971); Johnson v. Zenon, 88 F.3d 828, 829 (9th Cir. 1996). 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 (2001). 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:

Case 1:15-cv-00565-DAD-MJS Document 11 Filed 06/18/15 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

27

28

4

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. 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, 232 F.3d at 668-669 (italics added).

As stated above, Petitioner raises five claims for relief. Respondent contends that 

Petitioner failed to exhaust claims two through five in state court. Respondent notes that 

on direct appeal to the California Court of Appeal, Petitioner presented his confrontation 

clause and sufficiency of the evidence claims. (Mot., Ex. A.) However, Petitioner only 

sought a petition for review with the California Supreme Court for the confrontation 

clause claim. (Mot. to Dismiss, Exs. 1-2.) As Petitioner never presented claims two 

through five in the present petition to the California Supreme Court, Respondent asserts 

that the claims are not exhausted.

The Court agrees. Upon independent review, the Court concludes that Petitioner 

has not presented claims two through five to the California Supreme Court. Petitioner 

has presented a mixed petition containing both exhausted and unexhausted claims. 

Therefore, the Court may dismiss the petition without prejudice to give Petitioner an 

opportunity to exhaust the unexhausted claims. See Rose, 455 U.S. at 521-22; Jefferson 

v. Budge, 419 F.3d 1013, 1016 (9th Cir. 2005). Before dismissal, "[D]istrict courts must 

provide habeas litigants with the opportunity to amend their mixed petitions by striking 

their unexhausted claims." Jefferson, 419 F.3d at 1016. 

Accordingly, the Court recommends that the petition be dismissed in its entirety 

unless Petitioner informs the Court within 30 days of the issuance of this order of his 

Case 1:15-cv-00565-DAD-MJS Document 11 Filed 06/18/15 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

27

28

5

intent to dismiss the unexhausted claims and proceed solely with claim one.

III. RECOMMENDATION

Accordingly, it is hereby recommended that the Motion to Dismiss be granted. 

Petitioner is ordered to inform the Court within thirty (30) days of the issuance of this 

Findings and Recommendation whether he wishes to dismiss claims two through five of 

the petition, and proceed with claim one. Otherwise, the Court recommends that the 

petition be dismissed in its entirety without prejudice for failure to exhaust state 

remedies. 

Finally, the Court ORDERS the Clerk of Court to assign a District Court Judge to 

the instant matter. 

This Findings and Recommendation is submitted to the assigned District Judge, 

pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within thirty (30) days after 

being served with the Findings and Recommendation, 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 Recommendation." Any reply 

to the objections shall be served and filed within fourteen (14) 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. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 

834, 839 (9th Cir. 2014).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 17, 2015 /s/Michael J. Seng 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:15-cv-00565-DAD-MJS Document 11 Filed 06/18/15 Page 5 of 5