Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_18-cv-02610/USCOURTS-cand-3_18-cv-02610-4/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Robert Anthony Martinelli
Petitioner
Robert Neuschmid
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 

United States District Court 

Northern District of Californi

a

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

ROBERT ANTHONY MARTINELLI, 

Petitioner, 

v. 

ROBERT NEUSCHMID, 

Respondent. 

Case No. 18-cv-02610-JD 

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO 

DISMISS AND DENYING 

CERTIFICATE OF 

APPEALABILITY 

Re: Dkt. No. 10 

Robert Anthony Martinelli, a pro se state prisoner, filed a habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2254. Respondent filed a motion to dismiss asserting that the sole claim in the petition, that 

petitioner received ineffective assistance from trial counsel for the failure to demurrer the criminal 

complaint, had not been exhausted. Petitioner responded and filed a motion for a stay, which the 

Court dismissed with leave for petitioner to amend to demonstrate good cause. Petitioner failed to 

file an amended motion for a stay but did submit documents indicating that the California 

Supreme Court had recently denied a habeas petition. The Court was uncertain what claim had 

been presented to the California Supreme Court so ordered petitioner to file a response and 

provided respondent the opportunity to also file a response. The parties have filed responses. 

BACKGROUND 

Petitioner was found guilty after a jury trial of residential burglary and attempted 

carjacking. People v. Martinelli, No. A151339, 2018 WL 330130, at *1 (Cal. Ct. App. Jan. 9, 

2018). The jury also found that petitioner suffered two prior strike convictions. Id. Petitioner 

was sentenced to a prison term of 25 years to life. Id. On appeal to the California Court of 

Appeal, petitioner, represented by counsel, raised several claims but not the claim in this federal 

petition. Id. The California Court of Appeal affirmed the conviction. Id. Petitioner filed a pro se 

Case 3:18-cv-02610-JD Document 21 Filed 02/20/19 Page 1 of 5
2 

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 

Northern District of Californi

a

petition for review with the California Supreme Court. Motion to Dismiss (“MTD”), Ex. 1. The 

petition for review included the claim in this federal petition, but the claim had not been raised 

previously on appeal. Id. The California Supreme Court denied the petition for review. MTD, 

Ex. 2. 

Petitioner has filed state habeas petitions in the Contra Costa County Superior Court, 

California Court of Appeal, and California Supreme Court. MTD, Exs. 3, 4; Respondent’s 

Response (Docket No. 19), Ex. 7. None of these petitions raised the claim in this federal petition. 

Id. 

EXHAUSTION 

Prisoners in state custody who wish to challenge collaterally in federal habeas proceedings 

either the fact or length of their confinement are first required to exhaust state judicial remedies, 

either on direct appeal or through collateral proceedings, by presenting the highest state court 

available with a fair opportunity to rule on the merits of each and every claim they seek to raise in 

federal court. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b), (c); Rose v. Lundy, 455 U.S. 509, 515-16 (1982). The 

state’s highest court must be given an opportunity to rule on the claims even if review is 

discretionary. See O’Sullivan v. Boerckel, 526 U.S. 838, 845 (1999) (petitioner must invoke “one 

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

A federal claim is “fairly presented” to the state supreme court if it is raised by a 

procedural method that complies with the state appellate rules and involves a “permissible method 

of raising an issue in [the state supreme court].” Farmer v. Baldwin, 563 F.3d 1042, 1044 (9th 

Cir. 2009) (federal claims fairly presented when petitioner “complied with the appellate rules” by 

referring to brief with attachment containing federal claims in his petition for review before 

Oregon Supreme Court). To comply with the fair presentation requirement, a claim must be raised 

at every level of appellate review; raising a claim for the first time on discretionary review to the 

state’s highest court is insufficient. Casey v. Moore, 386 F.3d 896, 918 (9th Cir. 2004) (holding 

that where petitioner only raised federal constitutional claim on appeal to the Washington State 

Case 3:18-cv-02610-JD Document 21 Filed 02/20/19 Page 2 of 5
3 

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 

Northern District of Californi

a

Supreme Court, claim not fairly presented). It does not constitute “fair presentation” if the claim 

is raised by a procedural method which makes it unlikely that the claim will be considered on the 

merits. See Castille v. Peoples, 489 U.S. 346, 351 (1989) (presentation by way of petition to state 

supreme court for allocatur, which under state procedure may be considered only when “there are 

special and important reasons therefor,” insufficient to exhaust). 

DISCUSSION 

In this case, petitioner’s ineffective assistance of counsel claim was not presented on direct 

appeal to the California Court of Appeal but was presented on a petition for review to the 

California Supreme Court. The Court notes that “on petition for review the [California] Supreme 

Court normally will not consider an issue that the petitioner failed to timely raise in the Court of 

Appeal.” Cal. Rules of Court Rule 8.500(b) and (c). See also Hill v. Cal. Bd. of Prison Hearings, 

No. 06-3080 MMC, 2007 WL 2318976, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 10, 2007) (holding that a 

petitioner’s federal claim, raised only in a petition for review to the California Supreme Court and 

denied without comment, was not “fairly presented” to the state courts and was therefore 

unexhausted); Nichols v. Hartley, No. 08-1017 OWC-BAK-GSA, 2009 WL 3153710, at *2-4 

(E.D. Cal. Sept. 21, 2009) (same). Thus, the California Supreme Court did not review the claim.1

 

Because all California courts, including the California Supreme Court, have original 

habeas jurisdiction, a petitioner may properly exhaust a claim by raising it for the first time in an 

original petition for writ of habeas corpus filed with the California Supreme Court, even if the 

habeas petition is denied without comment. See Cal. Const. Art. 6, § 10. See also Harris v. Super. 

Ct., 500 F.2d 1124, 1128 (9th Cir. 1974) (holding that “[t]here is now no reason to suppose that a 

postcard denial without opinion is indicative of anything but a decision on the merits of the 

petition, except where a citation in the order tells us so.”). However, while petitioner later filed a 

 

1

 The Court has reviewed the attorney-prepared appeal to the California Court of Appeal, and no 

claim in that appeal could be construed as the ineffective assistance of claim in the petition for 

review to the California Supreme Court and in this federal petition. 

Case 3:18-cv-02610-JD Document 21 Filed 02/20/19 Page 3 of 5
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 

United States District Court 

Northern District of Californi

a

habeas petition with the California Supreme Court, the claims raised therein did not include the 

claim now raised in this federal petition. 

The instant case is indistinguishable from Casey. Petitioner clearly styled his first filing in 

the California Supreme Court as a petition for review. MTD, Ex. 1. Petitioner’s second filing to 

the California Supreme Court was labeled as a habeas petition (Respondent’s Response, Ex. 7), 

but it did not contain the claim in this federal petition. Petitioner’s filings indicate that he 

understands the differences between a petition for review and a habeas petition, and while he had 

the opportunity to exhaust this claim in state court, he failed to do so. Petitioner has also been 

provided multiple opportunities to file an amended motion for a stay and showing good cause for 

his failure to exhaust the claim, but he has failed to file the motion. This petition is unexhausted.2 

CONCLUSION 

1. Respondent’s motion to dismiss (Docket No. 10) is GRANTED and this case is 

DISMISSED without prejudice as unexhausted. Petitioner may file a new petition when all of the 

claims he wishes to pursue have been exhausted. 

2. A certificate of appealability (“COA”) will not issue because this is not a case in which 

“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 v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). The Court 

declines to issue a COA regarding the procedural holding or the underlying claim of the petition. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: February 20, 2019 

 

JAMES DONATO 

United States District Judge

 

2

 Petitioner argues that he exhausted additional claims and they are now part of this federal 

petition. Petitioner is mistaken. This petition continues with the one claim noted above and 

petitioner has not sought to amend the petition to add any new claims. Even if newly exhausted 

claims were added, this would still be a mixed petition and petitioner has not filed an amended 

motion for a stay or argued to strike the unexhausted claim. 

Case 3:18-cv-02610-JD Document 21 Filed 02/20/19 Page 4 of 5
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 

United States District Court 

Northern District of Californi

a

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

ROBERT ANTHONY MARTINELLI,

Plaintiff, 

v. 

ROBERT NEUSCHMID, 

Defendant. 

Case No. 18-cv-02610-JD 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am an employee in the Office of the Clerk, U.S. 

District Court, Northern District of California. 

That on February 20, 2019, I SERVED a true and correct copy(ies) of the attached, by 

placing said copy(ies) in a postage paid envelope addressed to the person(s) hereinafter listed, by 

depositing said envelope in the U.S. Mail, or by placing said copy(ies) into an inter-office delivery 

receptacle located in the Clerk's office. 

Robert Anthony Martinelli ID: BC-9943

C.S.P. Solano A2-229 L 

2100 Peabody Road

P.O. Box 4000 

Vacaville, CA 95696 

Dated: February 20, 2019 

Susan Y. Soong 

Clerk, United States District Court 

By:________________________ 

LISA R. CLARK, Deputy Clerk to the 

Honorable JAMES DONATO 

Case 3:18-cv-02610-JD Document 21 Filed 02/20/19 Page 5 of 5