Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-01570/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-01570-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Tommy Shivers
Petitioner
Veronica
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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

TOMMY SHIVERS,

Petitioner,

v.

VERONICA,

Respondent.

Case No. 1:15-cv-01570 MJS (HC)

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THE 

PETITION SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED 

FOR PETITIONER’S FAILURE TO 

EXHAUST STATE REMEDIES AND 

FAILURE TO STATE A COGNIZABLE 

CLAIM

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

corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Petitioner challenges a disciplinary report from 

September 14, 2015 alleging that he was masturbating in the hospital library. (Pet., ECF 

No. 1.) Petitioner has not provided any description of the resulting discipline he received, 

and further states that this filing is his first attempt to seek redress from the matter. (Pet.)

I. DISCUSSION

A. Exhaustion

Rule 4 of the Rules Governing § 2254 Cases requires the Court to make 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; Hendricks v. Vasquez, 908 F.2d 

Case 1:15-cv-01570-LJO-MJS Document 2 Filed 10/27/15 Page 1 of 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

2

490 (9th Cir.1990). Otherwise, the Court will order Respondent to respond to the petition. 

Rule 5 of the Rules Governing § 2254 Cases.

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 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 (legal basis); Kenney v. Tamayo-Reyes, 504 U.S. 1, 9 (1992) 

(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 (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 present" 

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-01570-LJO-MJS Document 2 Filed 10/27/15 Page 2 of 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

3

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 v. Crawford, 232 F.3d 666, 668-669 (9th Cir. 2000). 

Upon review of the instant petition for writ of habeas corpus, it appears that 

Petitioner has not presented any of the claims set forth in the petition to the highest state 

court, the California Supreme Court. 

Petitioner must inform the Court if, in fact, the claims have been presented to the 

California Supreme Court, and if possible, provide the Court with a copy of the petition 

filed in the California Supreme Court along with a copy of any ruling made by the 

California Supreme Court. 

B. Failure to State a Cognizable Claim

Further, it appears that the instant petition must be dismissed because it does not 

challenge the fact or duration of Petitioner's confinement.

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 . . . ." 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, 93 S. Ct. 1827, 36 L. Ed. 2d 439 (1973); 

Advisory Committee Notes to Rule 1 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases.

In contrast, a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 is the proper method 

Case 1:15-cv-01570-LJO-MJS Document 2 Filed 10/27/15 Page 3 of 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

4

for a prisoner or detainee to use to challenge the conditions of that confinement. 

McCarthy v. Bronson, 500 U.S. 136, 141-42, 111 S. Ct. 1737, 114 L. Ed. 2d 194 (1991); 

Preiser, 411 U.S. at 499; Badea, 931 F.2d at 574; Advisory Committee Notes to Rule 1 

of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases.

Petitioner's claim does not appear to implicate the fact or duration of his 

confinement. Petitioner states that he wants Respondent to "remove this lie off my 

record so I can go home." (Pet. at 3.) While Petitioner requests his release, it is not 

apparent that the resulting discipline from the incident, if any, is the cause of his 

continued confinement. "[A] prisoner's claim for release from one form of custody to 

another, less restrictive form of custody, can be brought in a habeas petition." See

Nettles v. Grounds, 788 F.3d 992, 1004 (9th Cir. 2015). However, Plaintiff's claims are 

too vague to determine whether the claims are cognizable by way of a federal habeas 

petition. 

Petitioner must inform the Court what punishment, if any, resulted from the 

incident and how it implicated the fact or duration of his confinement. 

II. ORDER

Accordingly, Petitioner is ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE why the petition should 

not be dismissed for Petitioner’s failure to exhaust state remedies and failure to state a 

cognizable claim. Petitioner is ORDERED to inform the Court if the claims have been 

presented to the California Supreme Court and how his claims implicate the fact or 

duration of his confinement within thirty (30) days of the date of service of this order. 

Petitioner is forewarned that failure to follow this order will result in dismissal of 

the petition pursuant to Local Rule 110.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 26, 2015 /s/Michael J. Seng 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:15-cv-01570-LJO-MJS Document 2 Filed 10/27/15 Page 4 of 4