Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_24-cv-00129/USCOURTS-caed-1_24-cv-00129-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
People of the State of California
Respondent
Tyrone Williams
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

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

TYRONE WILLIAMS,

Petitioner,

v.

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF 

CALIFORNIA,

Respondent.

No. 1:24-cv-00129-SKO (HC)

ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT 

TO ASSIGN DISTRICT JUDGE

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION 

TO SUMMARILY DISMISS 

UNEXHAUSTED PETITION

[TWENTY-ONE DAY OBJECTION 

DEADLINE]

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. Petitioner filed the instant habeas petition on 

January 29, 2024, challenging his 2020 conviction in Tulare County Superior Court of 

committing lewd acts on a child under 14 years of age, sodomy, and rape. Because the petition is

unexhausted, the Court will recommend it be DISMISSED.

DISCUSSION

A. Preliminary Review of 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 . . . .” Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. 

The Advisory Committee Notes to Rule 8 indicate that the court may dismiss a petition for writ of 

Case 1:24-cv-00129-KES-SKO Document 6 Filed 01/31/24 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

habeas corpus, either on its own motion under Rule 4, pursuant to the respondent’s motion to 

dismiss, or after an answer to the petition has been filed. Herbst v. Cook, 260 F.3d 1039 (9th Cir.

2001).

B. Exhaustion

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). 

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). 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, 112 S.Ct. 1715, 1719 (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. 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 

Case 1:24-cv-00129-KES-SKO Document 6 Filed 01/31/24 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

federal law or the decisions of federal courts, even if the federal basis is “selfevident," 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) (italics added), as amended by Lyons 

v. Crawford, 247 F.3d 904, 904-5 (9th Cir. 2001).

On appeal, Petitioner raised the following five grounds for relief: 1) The Second Amended 

Information was defective on its face for failure to state a public offense; 2) Jury instructions 

misled the jury into believing it could convict Petitioner of violating § 288(a) when victim was 

fourteen years old; 3) The evidence was insufficient that victim A.A. was under the age of 

fourteen when the acts occurred; 4) Petitioner was improperly sentenced as a third striker; and 5) 

Trial court abused its discretion in admitting evidence of Petitioner’s prior sex offenses. See

People v. Williams, 2022 WL 16956802 (Cal. Ct. App. 2022).

1

 The California Supreme Court 

denied review on January 25, 2023. Id. In the instant petition, Petitioner raises eleven grounds for 

relief. However, none of them were raised on appeal. Because Petitioner has not presented his 

claims for federal relief to the California state courts including the California Supreme Court, 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 Court cannot consider a petition that is 

entirely unexhausted. Rose v. Lundy, 455 U.S. 509, 521-22 (1982). 

ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to assign a District 

Judge to the case.

1 The Court may take judicial notice of facts that are capable of accurate and ready determination by resort 

to sources whose accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned. Fed. R. Evid. 201(b); United States v. BernalObeso, 989 F.2d 331, 333 (9th Cir. 1993). Judicial notice may be taken of court records. Valerio v. Boise 

Cascade Corp., 80 F.R.D. 626, 635 n. 1 (N.D.Cal.1978), aff'd, 645 F.2d 699 (9th Cir. 1981). The Court 

hereby takes judicial notice of Petitioner’s state appeal.

Case 1:24-cv-00129-KES-SKO Document 6 Filed 01/31/24 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

RECOMMENDATION

Accordingly, the Court HEREBY RECOMMENDS that the habeas corpus petition be 

DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for lack of exhaustion.

This Findings and Recommendation is submitted to the United States District Court Judge 

assigned to this case, 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 twenty-one (21) days after being served with a copy, Petitioner may file written objections 

with the Court. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings 

and Recommendation.” The Court will then review the Magistrate Judge’s ruling pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(C). Failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to 

appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 31, 2024 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto .

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:24-cv-00129-KES-SKO Document 6 Filed 01/31/24 Page 4 of 4