Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_19-cv-01369/USCOURTS-caed-1_19-cv-01369-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Scott Frauenheim
Respondent
Tiengkham Singanonh
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

TIENGKHAM SINGANONH,

Petitioner,

v.

SCOTT FRAUENHEIM,

Respondent.

No. 1:19-cv-01369-LJO-SKO (HC)

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION 

TO GRANT RESPONDENT’S MOTION 

TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO 

EXHAUST

[Doc. 9]

[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. He filed the instant petition on September 

30, 2019, challenging his 2017 conviction in Fresno County Superior Court for receiving a stolen 

vehicle. On December 3, 2019, Respondent filed a motion to dismiss the petition as wholly

unexhausted. On December 27, 2019, Petitioner filed an opposition to the motion. Because the 

petition is unexhausted, the Court will recommend that Respondent’s motion to dismiss be 

GRANTED.

DISCUSSION

A. Procedural History

On January 4, 2017, Petitioner was convicted in the Fresno County Superior Court of 

receiving a stolen vehicle (Cal. Penal Code § 496d(a)). (Doc. 10-1 at 1.) He was sentenced to a 

Case 1:19-cv-01369-DAD-SKO Document 14 Filed 01/13/20 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

term of six years in state prison. (Doc. 10-1 at 1.) 

Petitioner appealed to the California Court of Appeal, Fifth Appellate District (“Fifth 

DCA”). (Doc. 10-2.) He raised one claim on appeal: The trial court abused its discretion when it 

denied his motion to strike the prior felony conviction allegation pursuant to People v. Superior 

Court (Romero), 13 Cal.4th 497 (1996). (Doc. 10-2.) On August 20, 2018, the Fifth DCA 

affirmed the judgment. (Doc. 10-2.) 

Petitioner submitted a number of documents to the Fifth DCA following its issuance of 

the opinion. He submitted a petition for rehearing on September 4, 2018. (Doc. 10-5 at 3.) The 

document was marked received but was not filed, and the Fifth DCA did not rule on it. (Doc. 10-5 

at 3.) He submitted a letter on October 2, 2018, raising a claim of ineffective assistance of 

counsel. (Doc. 10-5 at 3.) The Fifth DCA advised Petitioner that its opinion was final as of 

September 17, 2018, and the court lacked jurisdiction to reconsider the decision. (Doc. 10-5 at 3.) 

Petitioner was advised that to the extent he wished to raise new issues such as ineffective 

assistance of counsel, he must do so by way of a petition for writ of habeas corpus. (Doc. 10-5 at 

3.) 

On September 27, 2018, Petitioner filed a pro per petition for review in the California 

Supreme Court. (Doc. 10-3.) He raised the following four claims for relief: 1) Petitioner’s 

confession was obtained in violation of Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1996); 2) The trial 

court should have reduced his crime to a misdemeanor “wobbler” offense because the fair market 

value of the vehicle was $300; 3) There was insufficient evidence that Petitioner was in 

possession of the stolen property; and 4) Detective Harrel committed perjury. (Doc. 10-3.) As 

noted by Respondent, the petition for review raised new claims and did not raise the one issue 

raised in the Fifth DCA. 

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 

Case 1:19-cv-01369-DAD-SKO Document 14 Filed 01/13/20 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

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 

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).

Case 1:19-cv-01369-DAD-SKO Document 14 Filed 01/13/20 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

In this case, Petitioner did not properly present his federal claims in the Fifth DCA. It 

appears he attempted to do so in a petition for rehearing after the opinion was issued, but the 

document was not filed, the opinion became final, and Petitioner was advised to pursue habeas 

relief because the appellate court lacked jurisdiction. Petitioner raised the claims in a petition for 

review in the California Supreme Court, but they were not properly raised and therefore not 

exhausted. As stated by the Supreme Court, in order to exhaust a federal claim, a petitioner 

“must ‘fairly present’ his claim in each appropriate state court,” including the intermediary court 

of appeal. Baldwin v. Reese, 541 U.S. 27, 29 (2004). Therefore, raising a federal claim for the 

first time in an application for discretionary review to the state’s highest court is insufficient for 

exhaustion purposes. Casey v. Moore, 386 F.3d 896, 918 (9th Cir. 2004.) 

Because Petitioner has not properly presented his claims for federal relief in the state 

courts, the Court will recommend dismissal of the petition for failure to exhaust state remedies. 

Raspberry v. Garcia, 448 F.3d 1150, 1154 (9th Cir. 2006); Jiminez v. Rice, 276 F.3d 478, 481 

(9th Cir. 2001). Although dismissal is not necessarily required, the Court does not find good 

cause to grant a stay. See Mena v. Long, 813 F.3d 907 (9th Cir. 2016). When Petitioner 

attempted to present his claims to the Fifth DCA, he was advised of the correct procedure, which 

was to file a petition for writ of habeas corpus. Petitioner has not followed the appellate court’s 

directives. 

RECOMMENDATION

Accordingly, the Court HEREBY RECOMMENDS that Respondent’s motion to dismiss 

the petition be GRANTED and the petition be DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for failure 

to exhaust.

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 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

Case 1:19-cv-01369-DAD-SKO Document 14 Filed 01/13/20 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

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 13, 2020 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto .

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:19-cv-01369-DAD-SKO Document 14 Filed 01/13/20 Page 5 of 5