Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_10-cv-00498/USCOURTS-caed-1_10-cv-00498-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Stephen Garcia
Petitioner
Rite-Aide
Respondent

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

STEPHEN GARCIA, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

)

v. )

)

RITE-AIDE, ) 

 )

Respondent. )

)

 )

1:10-cv—00498-SKO-HC

ORDER DISMISSING PETITION FOR

WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS (Doc. 1) 

ORDER DIRECTING THE CLERK TO

ENTER JUDGMENT AND CLOSE THE CASE

ORDER DECLINING TO ISSUE A

CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY

On March 19, 2010, Petitioner, who is currently incarcerated 

at the Fresno County Jail for a conviction involving assault

against a private undercover security officer and a police

officer, filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus in this

Court. (Pet. p. 2.) On March 30, 2010, Petitioner filed a

signed, written form indicating his consent to have a United

States Magistrate Judge conduct all further proceedings in this

case.

I. Screening the Petition

Rule 4 of the Rules Governing § 2254 Cases in the United

States District Courts (Habeas Rules) requires the Court to make

a preliminary review of each petition for writ of habeas corpus.

1

Case 1:10-cv-00498-SKO Document 6 Filed 05/11/10 Page 1 of 7
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

The Court must summarily dismiss a petition "[i]f it plainly

appears from the petition and any attached exhibits that the

petitioner is not entitled to relief in the district court....” 

Habeas Rule 4; O’Bremski v. Maass, 915 F.2d 418, 420 (9th Cir.

1990); see also Hendricks v. Vasquez, 908 F.2d 490 (9th Cir.

1990). Habeas Rule 2(c) requires that a petition 1) specify all

grounds of relief available to the Petitioner, 2) state the facts

supporting each ground, and 3) state the relief requested. 

Notice pleading is not sufficient; rather, the petition must

state facts that point to a real possibility of constitutional

error. Habeas Rule 4, Adv. Comm. Notes, 1976 Adoption; O’Bremski

v. Maass, 915 F.2d at 420 (quoting Blackledge v. Allison, 431

U.S. 63, 75 n. 7 (1977)). 

Further, 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. Advisory Committee Notes to Habeas Rule

8, 1976 Adoption; see, Herbst v. Cook, 260 F.3d 1039, 1042-43

(9th Cir. 2001). 

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.

2

Case 1:10-cv-00498-SKO Document 6 Filed 05/11/10 Page 2 of 7
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

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: 

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

3

Case 1:10-cv-00498-SKO Document 6 Filed 05/11/10 Page 3 of 7
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

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.

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

4

Case 1:10-cv-00498-SKO Document 6 Filed 05/11/10 Page 4 of 7
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

has not been extended to petitions that contain no exhausted

claims. Raspberry, 448 F.3d at 1154.

In this case, Petitioner states in the petition that he did

not appeal from his conviction, sentence, or commitment. (Pet.

p. 5, item 8.) Thus, the entire petition is unexhausted and must

be dismissed. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(1).

III. Certificate of Appealability

Unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of

appealability, an appeal may not be taken to the court of appeals

from the final order in a habeas proceeding in which the

detention complained of arises out of process issued by a state

court. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A); Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537

U.S. 322, 336 (2003). A certificate of appealability may issue

only if the applicant makes a substantial showing of the denial

of a constitutional right. § 2253(c)(2). Under this standard, a

petitioner must show that reasonable jurists could debate whether

the petition should have been resolved in a different manner or

that the issues presented were adequate to deserve encouragement

to proceed further. Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. at 336

(quoting Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000)). A

certificate should issue if the Petitioner shows that jurists of

reason would find it debatable whether the petition states a

valid claim of the denial of a constitutional right and that

jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the district

court was correct in any procedural ruling. Slack v. McDaniel,

529 U.S. 473, 483-84 (2000). In determining this issue, a court

conducts an overview of the claims in the habeas petition,

generally assesses their merits, and determines whether the

5

Case 1:10-cv-00498-SKO Document 6 Filed 05/11/10 Page 5 of 7
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

resolution was debatable among jurists of reason or wrong. 

Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. at 336-37. It is necessary for

an applicant to show more than an absence of frivolity or the

existence of mere good faith; however, it is not necessary for an

applicant to show that the appeal will succeed. Id. at 338. 

A district court must issue or deny a certificate of

appealability when it enters a final order adverse to the

applicant. Rule 11(a) of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases.

In the present case, the Court finds that reasonable jurists

would not find the Court's determination that Petitioner is not

entitled to federal habeas corpus relief debatable, wrong, or

deserving of encouragement to proceed further. Petitioner has

not made the required substantial showing of the denial of a

constitutional right. 

Accordingly, the Court hereby DECLINES to issue a

certificate of appealability. 

IV. Claim against Private Third Party

Rule 2 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the

United States District Courts requires that a petitioner in

custody under a state court judgment name as respondent in a

petition for writ of habeas corpus the state officer who has

custody of the petitioner. 

Petitioner has named as Respondent a private entity. Should

Petitioner seek to state some sort of claim against such an

entity, Petitioner IS ADVISED that a petition for writ of habeas

corpus cannot include such a claim. A federal court may only

grant a petition for writ of habeas corpus if the petitioner can

show that "he is in custody in violation of the Constitution or

6

Case 1:10-cv-00498-SKO Document 6 Filed 05/11/10 Page 6 of 7
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

laws or treaties of the United States." 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a). A

habeas corpus petition is the correct method for a prisoner to

challenge the legality or duration of his confinement. Badea v.

Cox, 931 F.2d 573, 574 (9th Cir. 1991)(quoting Preiser v.

Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 485 (1973)); Advisory Committee Notes to

Rule 1 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases, 1976 Adoption. 

V. Disposition

Accordingly, it is ORDERED that:

1) The petition for writ of habeas corpus is DISMISSED for

lack of exhaustion of state court remedies; 

2) The Clerk is DIRECTED to enter judgment and close the

case; and

3) The Court DECLINES to issue a certificate of

appealability. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 10, 2010 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto 

ie14hj UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

7

Case 1:10-cv-00498-SKO Document 6 Filed 05/11/10 Page 7 of 7