Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_16-cv-00296/USCOURTS-caed-1_16-cv-00296-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Jacob A. Buckingham
Petitioner
Kern County
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

JACOB A. BUCKINGHAM,

Petitioner,

v.

KERN COUNTY,

Respondent.

Case No. 1:16-cv-00296 LJO MJS (HC)

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION TO 

DISMISS PETITION FOR WRIT OF 

HABEAS CORPUS FOR FAILURE TO 

EXHAUST STATE REMEDIES

Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a Petition for Writ of Habeas 

Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 

I. BACKGROUND

Petitioner is currently in the custody of the California Department of Corrections. 

Petitioner challenges an August 19, 2014 conviction from the Kern County Superior 

Court for driving under the influence and proximately causing bodily injury; driving under

the influence with a blood-alcohol of greater than 0.08 percent and causing injury; driving 

on a suspended license; and misdemeanor child endangerment. Petitioner claims that 

his sentence was illegally enhanced under California law. (Pet.) In an attempt to exhaust 

his claims, Petitioner states that he appealed the conviction to the Fifth District Court of 

Appeal, but he did not state that he sought review from the California Supreme Court. 

Case 1:16-cv-00296-LJO-MJS Document 10 Filed 04/26/16 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

(Pet.)

On March 7, 2016, this Court ordered Petitioner to show cause why the petition 

should not be dismissed for failure to exhaust state remedies and for failure to state a 

cognizable claim. Petitioner was forewarned that the failure to comply with the order 

would result in dismissal of the petition. (Order, ECF No. 6.) Petitioner was ordered to 

file the response within thirty days of service of the order to show cause.

Petitioner filed a reply on March 28, 2016. (ECF No. 9.) While Petitioner therein 

attempts to explain how he has presented federally cognizable claims, he does not 

address whether he properly exhausted the claims in state court. (Id.) 

As it appears that the petition remains unexhausted, the Court recommends 

dismissal of the petition without prejudice for failure to exhaust state remedies. 

II. DISCUSSION

A. Procedural Grounds to Dismiss Petition

Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases allows a district court to 

dismiss a petition if it “plainly appears from the petition and any attached exhibits that the 

petitioner is not entitled to relief in the district court . . . .” The Advisory Committee Notes 

to Rule 5 of the Rules Governing § 2254 Cases state that “an alleged failure to exhaust 

state remedies may be raised by the attorney general, thus avoiding the necessity of a 

formal answer as to that ground.” Based on the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases, 

the Court will determine whether Petitioner is entitled to relief pursuant to its authority 

under Rule 4.

B. Exhaustion of State Remedies

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). 

Case 1:16-cv-00296-LJO-MJS Document 10 Filed 04/26/16 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

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). 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). 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 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:

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, 232 F.3d at 668-669 (italics added).

As stated above, Petitioner was informed by the Court that the claims of his 

federal petition were unexhausted and was ordered to show cause why the petition 

Case 1:16-cv-00296-LJO-MJS Document 10 Filed 04/26/16 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

should not be dismissed. Petitioner has not provided evidence that the claims were

presented to the California courts. The Court is considerate of Petitioner’s interest in 

having the present case adjudicated, however this Court cannot properly hear his claims 

until they are presented in state court. As Petitioner has not shown that he has 

exhausted the claims in the instant petition with the California Supreme Court, the 

petition must be dismissed. 

III. RECOMMENDATION

Accordingly, the Court RECOMMENDS that the Petition for Habeas Corpus be 

DISMISSED without prejudice.1

This Findings and Recommendation is submitted to the assigned United States 

District Court Judge, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. section 636 (b)(1)(B) and 

Rule 304 of the Local Rules of Practice for the United States District Court, Eastern 

District of California. Within thirty (30) days after the date of service of this Findings and 

Recommendation, any party may file written objections with the Court and serve a copy 

on all parties. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s 

Findings and Recommendation.” Replies to the Objections shall be served and filed 

within fourteen (14) days after service of the Objections. The Finding and 

Recommendation will then be submitted to the District Court for review of the Magistrate 

Judge’s ruling pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(c). The parties are advised that failure 

to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District 

Court's order. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 839 (9th Cir. 2014).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 25, 2016 /s/Michael J. Seng 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

 

1

A dismissal for failure to exhaust is not a dismissal on the merits, and Petitioner will not be 

barred from returning to federal court after Petitioner exhausts available state remedies by 28 U.S.C. § 

2244 (b)’s prohibition on filing second petitions. See In re Turner, 101 F.3d 1323 (9th Cir. 1996).

Case 1:16-cv-00296-LJO-MJS Document 10 Filed 04/26/16 Page 4 of 4