Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_16-cv-00966/USCOURTS-caed-1_16-cv-00966-2/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Stu Sherman
Defendant
Warren A. Van Voorhis
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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

WARREN A. VAN VOORHIS,

Petitioner,

v.

STU SHERMAN, Warden, Substance 

Abuse Treatment Facility and State Prison, 

Corcoran, California,

Respondent.

No. 1:16-cv-00966-SKO HC

ORDER DISMISSING CASE FOR 

FAILURE TO EXHAUST

Screening Order

Petitioner Warren A. Van Voorhis, a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for 

writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254,

1

seeks habeas relief following denial of 

parole. Because Petitioner has not exhausted his California state remedies, the Court must 

dismiss the petition.

I. Preliminary Screening

Rule 4 of the Rules Governing § 2254 Cases requires the Court to conduct a preliminary 

review of each petition for writ of habeas corpus. The Court must dismiss a petition "[i]f it 

plainly appears from the petition . . . that the petitioner is not entitled to relief." Rule 4 of the 

///

 

1

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c)(1), Petitioner consented, in writing, to the jurisdiction of a United States Magistrate 

Judge to conduct all further proceedings in this case, including the entry of final judgment.

Case 1:16-cv-00966-SKO Document 13 Filed 08/17/16 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

Rules Governing 2254 Cases; see also Hendricks v. Vasquez, 908 F.2d 490, 491 (9th Cir. 1990). 

A petition for habeas corpus should not be dismissed without leave to amend unless it appears 

that no tenable claim for relief can be pleaded were such leave to be granted. Jarvis v. Nelson, 

440 F.2d 13, 14 (9th Cir. 1971).

II. Procedural and Factual Background

In 1991, Petitioner was sentenced to a prison term of 54 1⁄2 years. On December 10, 2015, 

the California Board of Parole Hearings denied Petitioner parole and scheduled his next parole 

hearing for ten years. 

III. Exhaustion of State Remedies

A petitioner who is in state custody and wishes to collaterally challenge his imprisonment 

through a federal petition for writ of habeas corpus must first 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); 

Buffalo v. Sunn, 854 F.2d 1158, 1163 (9th Cir. 1988).

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). 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; Kenney v. 

Tamayo-Reyes, 504 U.S. 1, 8 (1992). The petitioner must also have specifically informed the 

state court that he was raising a federal constitutional claim. Duncan, 513 U.S. at 365-66; Lyons 

///

Case 1:16-cv-00966-SKO Document 13 Filed 08/17/16 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

v. Crawford, 232 F.3d 666, 669 (9th Cir. 2000), amended, 247 F.3d 904 (2001); Hiivala v. Wood, 

195 F.3d 1098, 1106 (9th Cir. 1999); Keating v. Hood, 133 F.3d 1240, 1241 (9th Cir. 1998).

The petition discloses that Petitioner has not pursued state habeas proceedings before 

filing his federal petition. Although non-exhaustion of state court remedies has been viewed as 

an affirmative defense, it is established that it is the petitioner’s burden to prove that state judicial 

remedies were properly exhausted. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(1)(A); Darr v. Burford, 339 U.S. 200, 

218-19 (1950), overruled in part on other grounds in Fay v. Noia, 372 U.S. 391 (1963); 

Cartwright v. Cupp, 650 F.2d 1103, 1104 (9th Cir. 1981). If available state court remedies have 

not been exhausted as to all claims, a district court must dismiss a petition.2 Rose v. Lundy, 455 

U.S. 509, 515-16 (1982). See also Raspberry v. Garcia, 448 F.3d 1150, 1154 (9th Cir. 2006); 

Jiminez v. Rice 276 F.3d 478, 481 (9th Cir. 2001) (both holding that when none of a petitioner’s 

claims has been presented to the highest state court as required by the exhaustion doctrine, the 

Court must dismiss the petition). 

VI. Certificate of Appealability

A petitioner seeking a writ of habeas corpus has no absolute entitlement to appeal a 

district court's denial of his petition, but may only appeal in certain circumstances. Miller-El v. 

Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 335-36 (2003). The controlling statute in determining whether to issue a

certificate of appealability is 28 U.S.C. § 2253, which provides:

(a) In a habeas corpus proceeding or a proceeding under section 2255 

before a district judge, the final order shall be subject to review, on appeal, by 

the court of appeals for the circuit in which the proceeding is held.

(b) There shall be no right of appeal from a final order in a proceeding 

to test the validity of a warrant to remove to another district or place for

///

 

2 This order dismisses the petition without prejudice. “Without prejudice” means that Petitioner may file a new 

federal petition for writ of habeas corpus after he has exhausted his state remedies if seeking federal habeas relief is 

still appropriate at that time.

Case 1:16-cv-00966-SKO Document 13 Filed 08/17/16 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

commitment or trial a person charged with a criminal offense against the 

United States, or to test the validity of such person's detention pending 

removal proceedings.

(c) (1) Unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of 

appealability, an appeal may not be taken to the court of appeals from—

 (A) the final order in a habeas corpus proceeding in which the 

detention complained of arises out of process issued by a State court; or

 (B) the final order in a proceeding under section 2255.

 (2) A certificate of appealability may issue under paragraph (1) 

only if the applicant has made a substantial showing of the denial of a 

constitutional right.

 (3) The certificate of appealability under paragraph (1) shall 

indicate which specific issues or issues satisfy the showing required by 

paragraph (2).

If a court denies a habeas petition, the court may only issue a certificate of appealability 

"if jurists of reason could disagree with the district court's resolution of his constitutional claims 

or that jurists could conclude the issues presented are adequate to deserve encouragement to 

proceed further." Miller-El, 537 U.S. at 327; Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). 

Although the petitioner is not required to prove the merits of his case, he must demonstrate 

"something more than the absence of frivolity or the existence of mere good faith on his . . . 

part." Miller-El, 537 U.S. at 338.

Reasonable jurists would not find the Court's determination that Petitioner did not exhaust 

his state remedies debatable or wrong, or the petition deserving of encouragement to proceed 

further. Accordingly, the Court declines to issue a certificate of appealability.

///

///

///

///

Case 1:16-cv-00966-SKO Document 13 Filed 08/17/16 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

V. Conclusion and Order

It is hereby ORDERED:

(1) The petition for writ of habeas corpus is DISMISSED without prejudice;

(2) The Court declines to issue a certificate of appealability; and

(3) The Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment for Respondent and close the 

 case.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 16, 2016 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto .

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:16-cv-00966-SKO Document 13 Filed 08/17/16 Page 5 of 5