Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-01809/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-01809-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Kelly Santoro
Respondent
Ramon Lopez Tapia
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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RAMON LOPEZ TAPIA,

Petitioner,

v.

KELLY SANTORO, Warden,

Respondent.

No. 1:15-cv-01809-BAM HC

ORDER DISMISSING THE 

PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS 

CORPUS FOR FAILURE TO 

EXHAUST STATE REMEDIES

(Doc. 1)

SCREENING ORDER

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

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254.1 Because Petitioner has not exhausted his state remedies, the Court 

must dismiss the petition.

I. Preliminary Screening

Rule 4 of the Rules Governing § 2254 Cases requires the Court to conduct a preliminary 

review of each petition for writ of habeas corpus. The Court must dismiss a petition "[i]f it 

plainly appears from the petition . . . that the petitioner is not entitled to relief." Rule 4 of the 

Rules Governing 2254 Cases; see also Hendricks v. Vasquez, 908 F.2d 490, 491 (9th Cir. 1990). 

A petition for habeas corpus should not be dismissed without leave to amend unless it appears 

 

1

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c)(1), Petitioner consented, in writing, to the jurisdiction of a United States Magistrate 

Judge to conduct all further proceedings in this case, including the entry of final judgment.

Case 1:15-cv-01809-BAM Document 6 Filed 12/22/15 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

that no tenable claim for relief can be pleaded were such leave to be granted. Jarvis v. Nelson, 

440 F.2d 13, 14 (9th Cir. 1971).

II. Procedural Background

On January 24, 2011, a jury in the Kern County Superior Court convicted Petitioner of 

first degree murder. On May 20, 2011, the state court sentenced Petitioner of a prison term of 25

years to life. On June 20, 2013, the California Court of Appeal for the Fifth District rejected 

Petitioner’s direct appeal, finding no arguable issues. The Court of Appeal modified its decision 

on July 15, 2013. See People v. Tapia, 2013 WL 3097179 (Cal.App. July 15, 2013) (No. 

F062550). The California Supreme Court denied review on September 18, 2013.

On December 3, 2015, in this Court, Petitioner filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus in 

which he asserted ten claims. Petitioner concedes that none of these claims have been exhausted. 

However, he states that a recently filed petition for habeas corpus is pending in Kern County 

Superior Court.

III. Exhaustion of State Remedies Required

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); Buffalo v. Sunn, 854 F.2d 1158, 

1163 (9th Cir. 1988).

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). A federal court will find that the highest state 

Case 1:15-cv-01809-BAM Document 6 Filed 12/22/15 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

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; Kenney v. 

Tamayo-Reyes, 504 U.S. 1, 8 (1992). The petitioner must also have specifically informed 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); Hiivala v. Wood, 

195 F.3d 1098, 1106 (9th Cir. 1999); Keating v. Hood, 133 F.3d 1240, 1241 (9th Cir. 1998).

When 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 has not been extended to petitions that contain no exhausted claims. Raspberry, 448 F.3d 

at 1154.

Petitioner concedes that he has not exhausted state remedies as to any of the claims set 

forth in his petition. Although non-exhaustion of state court remedies has been viewed as an 

affirmative defense, it is established that it is the petitioner’s burden to prove that state judicial 

remedies were properly exhausted. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(1)(A); Darr v. Burford, 339 U.S. 200, 

218-19 (1950), overruled in part on other grounds in Fay v. Noia, 372 U.S. 391 (1963); 

Cartwright v. Cupp, 650 F.2d 1103, 1104 (9th Cir. 1981). If available state court remedies have 

not been exhausted as to all claims, a district court must dismiss a petition. Rose v. Lundy, 455 

U.S. 509, 515-16 (1982).

IV. Certificate of Appealability

A petitioner seeking a writ of habeas corpus has no absolute entitlement to appeal a 

district court's denial of his petition, but may only appeal in certain circumstances. Miller-El v. 

Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 335-36 (2003). The controlling statute in determining whether to issue a 

Case 1:15-cv-01809-BAM Document 6 Filed 12/22/15 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

certificate of appealability is 28 U.S.C. § 2253, which provides:

(a) In a habeas corpus proceeding or a proceeding under section 2255 

before a district judge, the final order shall be subject to review, on 

appeal, by the court of appeals for the circuit in which the proceeding 

is held.

(b) There shall be no right of appeal from a final order in a proceeding 

to test the validity of a warrant to remove to another district or place 

for commitment or trial a person charged with a criminal offense 

against the United States, or to test the validity of such person's 

detention pending removal proceedings.

(c) (1) Unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of 

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

from—

(A) the final order in a habeas corpus proceeding in which the 

detention complained of arises out of process issued by a State 

court; or

 (B) the final order in a proceeding under section 2255.

(2) A certificate of appealability may issue under 

paragraph (1) only if the applicant has made a 

substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional 

right.

(3) The certificate of appealability under paragraph (1) 

shall indicate which specific issues or issues satisfy the 

showing required by paragraph (2).

If a court denies a habeas petition, the court may only issue a certificate of appealability 

"if jurists of reason could disagree with the district court's resolution of his constitutional claims 

or that jurists could conclude the issues presented are adequate to deserve encouragement to 

proceed further." Miller-El, 537 U.S. at 327; Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). 

Although the petitioner is not required to prove the merits of his case, he must demonstrate 

"something more than the absence of frivolity or the existence of mere good faith on his . . . 

part." Miller-El, 537 U.S. at 338.

In the present case, the Court finds that reasonable jurists would not find the Court's 

Case 1:15-cv-01809-BAM Document 6 Filed 12/22/15 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

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 declines to issue a 

certificate of appealability.

V. Conclusion and Recommendation

Petitioner concedes that he has not exhausted state remedies. Accordingly, it is hereby 

ORDERED that the petition for writ of habeas corpus be DISMISSED without prejudice. The 

Court declines to issue a certificate of appealability. The Clerk of Court is directed to close the 

case.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 21, 2015 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:15-cv-01809-BAM Document 6 Filed 12/22/15 Page 5 of 5