Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-01080/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-01080-4/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Ronald Evert Barr
Petitioner
Jeffrey Beard
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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RONALD EVERT BARR,

Petitioner,

v.

JEFFREY BEARD,

Respondent.

Case No. 1:15-cv-01080-SAB-HC

ORDER DISMISSING PETITION FOR 

WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT 

TO CLOSE CASE

ORDER DECLINING TO ISSUE 

CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY

Petitioner is proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 

U.S.C. § 2254.

I.

BACKGROUND

In 2012, Petitioner was convicted in Inyo County Superior Court of oral copulation of a 

minor, oral copulation of an intoxicated person, and annoying and molesting a child. He was 

sentenced to a term of six years imprisonment.

On January 30, 2015, the California Court of Appeal, Fifth Appellate District, directed 

the trial court to correct its award of presentence credits. In all other respects, the court affirmed 

the convictions and sentence. People v. Barr, No. E058083, 2015 WL 401740, at *9 (Cal. Ct. 

App. Jan. 30, 2015). On April 15, 2015, the California Supreme Court denied the petition for 

Case 1:15-cv-01080-SAB Document 22 Filed 01/05/16 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

review. (LD120). Petitioner did not file any habeas petitions in state court.

On June 25, 2015, Petitioner filed the instant petition for writ of habeas corpus in this 

Court. (ECF No. 1). Respondent has filed an answer to the petition and Petitioner has filed a 

traverse (ECF Nos. 17, 20). Petitioner and Respondent have consented to the jurisdiction of the 

Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). (ECF Nos. 4, 7, 16). 

Petitioner alleges that: (1) he was denied effective assistance of counsel; and (2) the 

prosecution failed to preserve and provide him with exculpatory evidence. (ECF No. 1 at 5, 7).2

II.

DISCUSSION

A petitioner in state custody who is proceeding with 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.

O’Sullivan v. Boerckel, 526 U.S. 838, 845 (1999); Duncan v. Henry, 513 U.S. 364, 365 (1995); 

Picard v. Connor, 404 U.S. 270, 276 (1971). To provide the highest state court the necessary 

opportunity, the petitioner must “fairly present” the claim with “reference to a specific federal 

constitutional guarantee, as well as a statement of the facts that entitle the petitioner to relief.” 

Duncan, 513 U.S. at 365; Gray v. Netherland, 518 U.S. 152, 162-63 (1996). See also Davis v. 

Silva, 511 F.3d 1005, 1009 (9th Cir. 2008).

Here, upon a review of the petition, it appears that Petitioner has not presented his claims 

to the California Supreme Court, and therefore, the petition is completely unexhausted. The 

petition raises several claims of ineffective assistance of trial counsel. Specifically, Petitioner 

asserts that his trial counsel was ineffective for: being prosecuted for drug use at the time of trial; 

 

1

“LD” refers to the documents lodged by Respondent on October 7, 2015.

2

Page numbers refer to the ECF page numbers stamped at the top of the page.

Case 1:15-cv-01080-SAB Document 22 Filed 01/05/16 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

failing to exclude a defense investigator who was the football coach of one of the victims; failing 

to exclude a prosecution witness whose wife/fiancée had romantic relations with Petitioner; 

failing to investigate and provide mitigating evidence that would contradict prosecution witness 

testimony; failing to call defenses witnesses; and failing to file a written motion pursuant to 

section 782 of the California Evidence Code to attack the credibility of witnesses. Petitioner also 

alleges that his due process rights were violated because law enforcement failed to stop one of 

the victims from deleting allegedly exculpatory text messages on his phone while in their 

presence and failed to obtain warrants to search Petitioner’s home and collect DNA samples.

However, the only claim raised in Petitioner’s petition for review to the California Supreme 

Court was whether Petitioner was denied effective assistance of counsel when his trial attorney 

failed to obtain a jury instruction on the effect of voluntary intoxication on the ability of the 

defendant to form the knowledge requirement as to oral copulation of an intoxicated person and 

of a person under the age of eighteen. (LD 20). 

If Petitioner has not sought relief in the California Supreme Court for the claims that he 

raises in the instant petition, the Court cannot proceed to the merits of those claims. 28 U.S.C. § 

2254(b)(1); O’Sullivan, 526 U.S. at 845 (“Because the exhaustion doctrine is designed to give 

the state courts a full and fair opportunity to resolve federal constitutional claims before those 

claims are presented to the federal courts, we conclude that state prisoners must give the state 

courts one full opportunity to resolve any constitutional issues by invoking one complete round 

of the State’s established appellate review process.”).

III.

CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY

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

district court’s denial of his petition, and an appeal is only allowed in certain circumstances. 

Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 335-36 (2003). The controlling statute in determining 

whether to issue a certificate of appealability is 28 U.S.C. § 2253, which provides as follows:

(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 

Case 1:15-cv-01080-SAB Document 22 Filed 01/05/16 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

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 issue or issues satisfy the showing 

required by paragraph (2).

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

appealability “if jurists of reason could disagree with the district court’s resolution of [the 

petitioner’s] 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). While 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.

If a court denies habeas relief on procedural grounds without reaching the underlying 

constitutional claims, the court should issue a certificate of appealability if “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 its 

procedural ruling.” Slack, 529 U.S. at 484. “Where a plain procedural bar is present and the 

district court is correct to invoke it to dispose of the case, a reasonable jurist could not conclude 

either that the district court erred in dismissing the petition or that the petitioner should be 

allowed to proceed further.” Id.

Case 1:15-cv-01080-SAB Document 22 Filed 01/05/16 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

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

determination that Petitioner’s federal habeas corpus petition should be dismissed debatable, 

wrong, or deserving of encouragement to proceed further. Therefore, the Court declines to issue 

a certificate of appealability.

IV.

ORDER

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The petition is DISMISSED without prejudice for failure to exhaust state remedies; 

2. The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to close the case; and 

3. The Court DECLINES to issue a certificate of appealability. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 5, 2016 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:15-cv-01080-SAB Document 22 Filed 01/05/16 Page 5 of 5