Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-00258/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-00258-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Martin D. Biter
Respondent
Anthony Burciaga
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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ANTHONY BURCIAGA, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

)

v. )

)

MARTIN D. BITER, Warden, ) 

 )

Respondent. )

)

 )

1:12-cv—00258-LJO-SKO-HC

ORDER RE: FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING

RESPONDENT’S MOTION TO DISMISS

THE PETITION (Docs. 11, 8)

ORDER GRANTING PETITIONER’S

MOTION TO FILE THE PROPOSED FIRST

AMENDED PETITION (Doc. 19)

ORDER DIRECTING THE CLERK TO FILE

THE PROPOSED FIRST AMENDED

PETITION AS THE FIRST AMENDED

PETITION (Doc. 19 at pages 4-34)

ORDER DECLINING RESPONDENT’S

REQUEST TO LIMIT THE CLAIMS IN

THE FIRST AMENDED PETITION

(Doc. 20)

ORDER REFERRING THE MATTER BACK

TO THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE FOR

FURTHER SCREENING

Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in

forma pauperis with a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant

to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The matter was been referred to the

Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Local

Rules 302 and 304.

1

Case 1:12-cv-00258-LJO-SKO Document 21 Filed 01/28/13 Page 1 of 7
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

I. Background 

On July 26, 2012, the Magistrate Judge filed findings and

recommendations regarding Respondent’s motion to dismiss the

petition on the ground that as to some of the claims in the

petition, Petitioner failed to exhaust his state court remedies. 

It was recommended that the Court find that Petitioner had

exhausted state court remedies as to some claims but had failed

to exhaust state court remedies as to other claims, and that

Petitioner be given thirty (30) days within which to move to

withdraw his unexhausted claims.

The findings and recommendations were served on Petitioner

on July 26, 2012. The findings and recommendations informed

Petitioner that objections were due within thirty days of

service. 

After several extensions of time, Petitioner filed on

January 2, 2013, a document denominated as objections to the

findings and recommendations, but which Petitioner represented

were objections “only to the extent that the petitioner opts to

amend his petition to eliminate the unexhausted claims, and file

an amended petition that contains no unexhausted claims, and is

based wholly on the Petition for Review to the California Supreme

Court.” (Doc. 19, 1.) Petitioner attached a proposed first

amended petition to his filing. (Doc. 19, 4-34.) It thus

appears that 1) Petitioner has no objections to the findings and

recommendations concerning the unopposed motion to dismiss, and

2) Petitioner has moved to file an amended petition, which is

fully consistent with the Magistrate Judge’s ultimate

recommendation in the findings and recommendations.

2

Case 1:12-cv-00258-LJO-SKO Document 21 Filed 01/28/13 Page 2 of 7
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

On January 9, 2012, Respondent filed a reply to the

objections and a response to the motion to file an amended

petition in which Respondent argued that as to one of the subclaims in the proposed first amended petition, Petitioner had not

exhausted his state court remedies. Respondent did not otherwise

oppose the filing of the amended petition, but Respondent

requested that he not be required to answer the unexhausted subclaim.

II. The Findings and Recommendations 

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636

(b)(1)(C), this Court has conducted a de novo review of the case. 

The undersigned has carefully reviewed the entire file and has

considered the objections; the undersigned has determined there

is no need to modify the findings and recommendations based on

the points raised in the objections. The Court finds that the

report and the express recommendations are supported by the

record and proper analysis.

The Magistrate Judge correctly concluded that, as Respondent

argued in the motion to dismiss, Petitioner failed to raise

before the California Supreme Court a claim or sub-claim that the

in-field identification that followed the arrest was unduly

suggestive. Further, the Magistrate Judge correctly concluded

that Petitioner’s cumulative error claim was not raised before

the California Supreme Court. 

Accordingly, as the Magistrate Judge indicated, the

initially filed petition is a mixed petition subject to

dismissal. The Magistrate Judge correctly recommended that

Petitioner be permitted to move to withdraw his claims as to

3

Case 1:12-cv-00258-LJO-SKO Document 21 Filed 01/28/13 Page 3 of 7
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

which state court remedies were not exhausted. 

Accordingly, the Court will adopt the recommendations of the

Magistrate Judge. 

III. Filing of the Proposed First Amended Petition 

 The claims that Petitioner seeks to raise in his proposed

first amended petition (FAP) are as follows: 1) Petitioner’s

arrest was without probable cause, and thus the evidence

resulting from the arrest must be suppressed; 2) Petitioner’s

three-hour detention was excessive under the Fourth Amendment; 3)

Petitioner’s statements were obtained involuntarily and must be

suppressed; 4) the trial court’s failure to give lesser-includedoffense instructions was a violation of due process; and 5) trial

counsel was ineffective and made an unreasonable, prejudicial,

professional decision in conceding to the jury that the

Petitioner was the shooter. (Doc. 19, 5.) 

In the reply, Respondent argues that Petitioner did not

exhaust state court remedies as to Petitioner’s claim that

physical evidence should be suppressed as a result of his arrest

without probable cause. Respondent bases this position on the

Magistrate Judge’s observation in the findings and

recommendations that Petitioner did not expressly mention

physical evidence or the identification as fruits of Petitioner’s

arrest or detention, and that consequently, their admissibility

was not presented to the California Supreme Court. 

It is true that in the petition for review, no specific

evidence was expressly identified as fruits of the unlawful

arrest. (LD 3.) However, Petitioner’s argument heading asserted

directly that the evidence obtained as a result of the arrest

4

Case 1:12-cv-00258-LJO-SKO Document 21 Filed 01/28/13 Page 4 of 7
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

must be suppressed because the arrest violated the Fourth

Amendment. (LD 3, i (item 1.) Further, Petitioner attached as 1

an exhibit to the petition for review the appellate decision of

the Court of Appeal of the State of California, Fifth Appellate

District (CCA). (Id. at 1.) In the petition for review,

Petitioner expressly adopted the statement of the case and facts

from the CCA’s decision. (Id. at 3.) The CCA’s statement of the

case and facts detailed responding law enforcement officers’

discovery of Petitioner, his confederates, shoe prints on the

side of a hill a short distance from the site of the officers’

initial encounter with Petitioner, a trail of shoe prints leading

back to the property where the Petitioner’s offense occurred, a

shotgun containing four shells located along the trail of shoe

prints, a handgun, and additional shoe prints and shotgun shell

casings discovered at the scene of the crime. It also set forth

Petitioner’s statements that were taken on the day of the arrest. 

(LD 2 at 3-5.) 

It thus appears that Petitioner incorporated into his

petition for review a statement of the facts that included

specification of Petitioner’s statement and the specific items of

physical evidence that resulted from the arrest process. 

Further, he expressly raised before the California Supreme Court

The argument heading regarding fruits stated in the petition for review is as follows:

1

REVIEW SHOULD BE GRANTED TO DETERMINE IF THE FACTORS CITED BY

THE COURT OF APPEAL WERE SUFFICIENT TO ESTABLISH PROBABLE

CAUSE FOR ARREST OR IF THE EVIDENCE OBTAINED AS A RESULT OF THE

ARREST MUST BE SUPPRESSED BECAUSE THE ARREST VIOLATED THE

FOURTH AMENDMENT.

(Id. at i (item 1).)

5

Case 1:12-cv-00258-LJO-SKO Document 21 Filed 01/28/13 Page 5 of 7
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

not only the issue of the absence of probable cause for the

arrest, but also the issue of suppression of the evidence

obtained as a result of the arrest. 

The Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge that Petitioner’s

argument in the petition for review with respect to the

Petitioner’s confession did not necessarily imply that the other

evidence resulting from the arrest should be suppressed. 

However, such an implication was not necessary because

Petitioner’s legal argument heading, the incorporated statement

of facts from the CCA’s appellate decision, and Petitioner’s

argument sufficed to alert the state court to the factual and

legal bases of the claim that the evidence resulting from the

arrest should be suppressed because of a Fourth Amendment

violation. 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 v. Henry, 513 U.S. 364,

365 (1995) (legal basis); Kenney v. Tamayo-Reyes, 504 U.S. 1, 9-

10 (1992), superceded by statute as stated in Williams v. Taylor,

529 U.S. 362 (2000) (factual basis).

Accordingly, the Court concludes that Petitioner exhausted

state court remedies as to Petitioner’s sub-claim concerning

suppression of physical evidence. Therefore, the Court rejects

Respondent’s suggested limitation on the claims Petitioner may

raise in the first amended petition.

Petitioner’s filing of the first amended petition is

otherwise unopposed by Respondent.

A court has inherent power to control its docket and the

6

Case 1:12-cv-00258-LJO-SKO Document 21 Filed 01/28/13 Page 6 of 7
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

disposition of its cases with economy of time and effort for both

the court and the parties. Landis v. North American Co., 299

U.S. 248, 254-255 (1936); Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260

(9th Cir. 1992). To facilitate the readying of the instant case

for a decision on the merits, the Court will grant Petitioner’s

unopposed motion to file the proposed first amended petition and

will refer the case back to the Magistrate Judge for further

screening.

IV. Disposition

Accordingly, it is ORDERED that:

1) The findings and recommendations filed on July 26, 2012,

are ADOPTED in full; and 

2) Petitioner’s motion to file the proposed first amended

petition is GRANTED; and

3) The Clerk is DIRECTED to file the proposed first amended

petition, consisting of document 19 at pages 4 through 34, as the

first amended petition; and

4) Respondent’s request to limit the claims stated in

aforementioned first amended petition is DENIED; and

5) The case is referred back to the Magistrate Judge for

further screening.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 23, 2013 /s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill B9ed48

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

7

Case 1:12-cv-00258-LJO-SKO Document 21 Filed 01/28/13 Page 7 of 7