Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_18-cv-06733/USCOURTS-cand-3_18-cv-06733-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Willie Russel Griffin
Petitioner
Joe Lizaraga
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

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

WILLIE RUSSEL GRIFFIN,

Petitioner,

v.

JOE LIZARAGA,

Respondent.

Case No. 18-cv-06733-WHO (PR) 

ORDER DISMISSING PETITION 

WITH LEAVE TO AMEND

INTRODUCTION

Petitioner Willie Russel Griffin seeks federal habeas relief from his state 

convictions. The petition does not state any claim for relief for the reasons discussed 

below. Accordingly, the petition is DISMISSED with leave to file an amended petition on 

or before February 18, 2019. 

BACKGROUND

In 2011, Griffin pleaded guilty in state court to voluntary manslaughter. A sentence 

of 37 years was imposed. 

Griffin filed no appeals. In 2018 he sought, but was denied, collateral relief in the 

state courts. This federal habeas petition followed. 

Case 3:18-cv-06733-WHO Document 8 Filed 01/07/19 Page 1 of 4
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

DISCUSSION

This Court may entertain a petition for writ of habeas corpus “in behalf of a person 

in custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court only on the ground that he is in 

custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2254(a). A district court considering an application for a writ of habeas corpus shall 

“award the writ or issue an order directing the respondent to show cause why the writ 

should not be granted, unless it appears from the application that the applicant or person 

detained is not entitled thereto.” 28 U.S.C. § 2243. Summary dismissal is appropriate 

only where the allegations in the petition are vague or conclusory, palpably incredible, or 

patently frivolous or false. See Hendricks v. Vasquez, 908 F.2d 490, 491 (9th Cir. 1990). 

As grounds for federal habeas relief, Griffin claims that his sentence is illegal under 

state laws that forbid multiple punishments for the same crime and the “dual use of facts.” 

(Pet., Dkt. No. 1 at 19 and 30.) He fails to state a claim for two reasons. First, violations 

of state law are not remediable on federal habeas review, even if state law was erroneously 

interpreted or applied. Swarthout v. Cooke, 562 U.S. 216, 218-20 (2011). Accordingly, 

because Griffin alleges violations of state law, he fails to articulate a claim for federal 

habeas relief. 

Second, after a defendant has entered a plea of guilty, the only challenges left open 

on federal habeas corpus review concern the (i) voluntary and intelligent character of the 

plea and (ii) adequacy of the advice of counsel. Womack v. Del Papa, 497 F.3d 998, 1002 

(9th Cir. 2007) (quoting Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52, 56-57 (1985)).1 Griffin pleaded 

guilty. His habeas claim does not arise from one of the two circumstances listed above. 

As a result, his petition will be dismissed with leave to file an amended petition. 

Because Griffin has not exhausted his claims in state court, he may wish to file a 

 

1 There are exceptions to this general bar. For example, a defendant who pleads guilty still 

may raise in habeas corpus proceedings the very power of the state to bring him into court 

to answer the charge brought against him, see Haring v. Prosise, 462 U.S. 306, 320 (1983) 

(citing Blackledge v. Perry, 417 U.S. 21, 30 (1974)), and may raise a double jeopardy 

claim, see id. (citing Menna v. New York, 423 U.S. 61 (1975)).

Case 3:18-cv-06733-WHO Document 8 Filed 01/07/19 Page 2 of 4
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

motion to stay habeas proceedings while he exhausts his claims. Prisoners in state custody 

who wish to challenge collaterally either the fact or length of their confinement in federal 

habeas proceedings are first required to exhaust state judicial remedies, either on direct 

appeal or through collateral proceedings, by presenting the highest state court available 

with a fair opportunity to rule on the merits of each and every claim they seek to raise in 

federal court. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b), (c); Rose v. Lundy, 455 U.S. 509, 515-16 (1982). 

If the claims are unexhausted, respondent will likely file a motion to dismiss on grounds of 

nonexhaustion.

Griffin must also be aware of the following. If he exhausts his claims and if the 

Court allows them to proceed here, respondent will likely file a motion to dismiss the 

petition as untimely. He was convicted in 2011 but did not file this habeas action until 

2018. Federal habeas petitions must be filed within one year of the latest of the date on 

which: (A) the judgment became final after the conclusion of direct review or the time 

passed for seeking direct review; (B) an impediment to filing an application created by 

unconstitutional state action was removed, if such action prevented petitioner from filing; 

(C) the constitutional right asserted was recognized by the Supreme Court, if the right was 

newly recognized by the Supreme Court and made retroactive to cases on collateral 

review; or (D) the factual predicate of the claim could have been discovered through the 

exercise of due diligence. See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1).

To successfully challenge such a motion, Griffin will have to demonstrate that he is 

entitled to equitable tolling. A federal habeas petitioner is entitled to equitable tolling if he 

can show “‘(1) that he has been pursuing his rights diligently, and (2) that some 

extraordinary circumstance stood in his way’ and prevented timely filing.” Holland v. 

Florida, 560 U.S. 631, 649 (2010) (quoting Pace v. DiGuglielmo, 544 U.S. 408, 418 

(2005)). 

CONCLUSION

The petition is DISMISSED with leave to file an amended petition on or before 

February 19, 2019. Griffin may wish to file a motion for a stay along with the amended 

Case 3:18-cv-06733-WHO Document 8 Filed 01/07/19 Page 3 of 4
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

petition. 

The filing fee has been paid. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 7, 2019

_________________________

WILLIAM H. ORRICK

United States District Judge

Case 3:18-cv-06733-WHO Document 8 Filed 01/07/19 Page 4 of 4