Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_10-cv-00438/USCOURTS-caed-1_10-cv-00438-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Fresno Police Department
Respondent
Stephen Garcia
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

STEPHEN GARCIA, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

)

v. )

)

FRESNO POLICE DEPARTMENT, ) 

 )

Respondent. )

)

)

 )

1:10-cv—0-00438-SKO-HC

ORDER DISMISSING PETITION FOR

WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS 

ORDER DIRECTING THE CLERK TO

ENTER JUDGMENT AND CLOSE THE CASE

ORDER DECLINING TO ISSUE A

CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY

ORDER DIRECTING THE CLERK TO MAIL

A CIVIL RIGHTS FORM TO PETITIONER

On March 11, 2010, Petitioner, who is currently incarcerated

in the Fresno County Jail, filed a petition for writ of habeas

corpus in this Court. (Pet. 1-2.) On March 22, 2010,

Petitioner filed a signed, written form indicating his consent to

have a United States Magistrate Judge conduct all further

proceedings in this case.

I. Screening the Petition

Rule 4 of the Rules Governing § 2254 Cases in the United

States District Courts (Habeas Rules) requires the Court to make

a preliminary review of each petition for writ of habeas corpus. 

The Court must summarily dismiss a petition "[i]f it plainly

1

Case 1:10-cv-00438-SKO Document 6 Filed 05/25/10 Page 1 of 8
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

appears from the petition and any attached exhibits that the

petitioner is not entitled to relief in the district court....” 

Habeas Rule 4; O’Bremski v. Maass, 915 F.2d 418, 420 (9th Cir.

1990); see also Hendricks v. Vasquez, 908 F.2d 490 (9th Cir.

1990). Habeas Rule 2(c) requires that a petition 1) specify all

grounds of relief available to the Petitioner; 2) state the facts

supporting each ground; and 3) state the relief requested. 

Notice pleading is not sufficient; rather, the petition must

state facts that point to a real possibility of constitutional

error. Rule 4, Adv. Comm. Notes, 1976 Adoption; O’Bremski v.

Maass, 915 F.2d at 420 (quoting Blackledge v. Allison, 431 U.S.

63, 75 n. 7 (1977)).

Further, the Court may dismiss a petition for writ of 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. Advisory Committee Notes to Habeas Rule

8, 1976 Adoption; see, Herbst v. Cook, 260 F.3d 1039, 1042-43

(9th Cir. 2001). 

II. Conditions of Confinement 

A federal court may only grant a petition for writ of habeas

corpus if the petitioner can show that "he is in custody in

violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United

States." 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a). A habeas corpus petition is the

correct method for a prisoner to challenge the legality or

duration of his confinement. Badea v. Cox, 931 F.2d 573, 574

(9th Cir. 1991)(quoting Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 485

(1973)); Advisory Committee Notes to Rule 1 of the Rules

Governing Section 2254 Cases, 1976 Adoption. 

2

Case 1:10-cv-00438-SKO Document 6 Filed 05/25/10 Page 2 of 8
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

In contrast, a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §

1983 is the proper method for a prisoner to challenge the

conditions of that confinement. McCarthy v. Bronson, 500 U.S.

136, 141-42 (1991); Preiser, 411 U.S. at 499; Badea, 931 F.2d at

574; Advisory Committee Notes to Rule 1 of the Rules Governing

Section 2254 Cases, 1976 Adoption. 

In this case, Petitioner alleges that when he was arrested

by the police, his jaw was broken. Thereafter, he was not given

medication for a month. (Pet. 3.) 

Petitioner’s allegations concern his conditions of

confinement. Thus, Petitioner is not entitled to habeas corpus

relief, and the petition must be dismissed. 

Should Petitioner wish to pursue his claims, he must do so

by way of a civil rights complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

The Clerk will be directed to send an appropriate complaint form

to Petitioner.

III. Failure to Exhaust a Claim

Although the grounds of the petition relate to the injuries

allegedly sustained by Petitioner during his arrest and the

withholding of medical care thereafter, the petition also

contains allegations of fact relating to Petitioner’s convictions

for assault on an officer and resisting arrest. (Pet. 3.) 

Petitioner states that at a pre-trial hearing, a police officer

lied about Petitioner’s having beaten a female officer and then

having tried to take the gun of another officer and shoot him

with it. (Id.) 

It is not clear that Petitioner intended to request habeas

relief with respect to his convictions and the testimony of the

3

Case 1:10-cv-00438-SKO Document 6 Filed 05/25/10 Page 3 of 8
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

law enforcement officers. However, if Petitioner did so intend,

then the Court notes that a petitioner who is in state custody

and wishes to challenge collaterally a 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); Buffalo v. Sunn, 854

F.2d 1158, 1162-63 (9th Cir. 1988). 

A petitioner can satisfy the exhaustion requirement by

providing the highest state court with the necessary jurisdiction

a full and fair opportunity to consider each claim before

presenting it to the federal court, and demonstrating that no

state remedy remains available. Picard v. Connor, 404 U.S. 270,

275-76 (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 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). 

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; Lyons v. Crawford, 232 F.3d 666, 669

(9th Cir. 2000), amended, 247 F.3d 904 (9th Cir. 2001); Hiivala

v. Wood, 195 F.3d 1098, 1106 (9th Cir. 1999); Keating v. Hood,

4

Case 1:10-cv-00438-SKO Document 6 Filed 05/25/10 Page 4 of 8
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

133 F.3d 1240, 1241 (9th Cir. 1998). 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 in Lyons v. Crawford, 232 F.3d 666, 668-69 (9th Cir.

2000), as amended by Lyons v. Crawford, 247 F.3d 904, 904-05 (9th

Cir. 2001), 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 "self-evident," 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, see, e.g., Hiivala v. Wood, 195 

F.3d 1098, 1106-07 (9th Cir. 1999); Johnson v. Zenon,

88 F.3d 828, 830-31 (9th Cir. 1996); Crotts, 73 F.3d 

at 865.

...

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, 668-69 (9th Cir. 2000), as

5

Case 1:10-cv-00438-SKO Document 6 Filed 05/25/10 Page 5 of 8
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

amended by Lyons v. Crawford, 247 F.3d 904, 904-05 (9th Cir.

2001). 

Where 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. Raspberry v. Garcia, 448

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

481 (9th Cir. 2001). The authority of a court to hold a mixed

petition in abeyance pending exhaustion of the unexhausted claims

has not been extended to petitions that contain no exhausted

claims. Raspberry, 448 F.3d at 1154.

In this case, Petitioner states in the petition that he did

not appeal from his conviction, sentence, or commitment. (Pet. 

5.) Thus, insofar as the petition concerns Petitioner’s

convictions, the petition is unexhausted and must be dismissed. 

28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(1). 

IV. Certificate of Appealability

Unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of

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

from the final order in a habeas proceeding in which the

detention complained of arises out of process issued by a state

court. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A); Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537

U.S. 322, 336 (2003). A certificate of appealability may issue

only if the applicant makes a substantial showing of the denial

of a constitutional right. § 2253(c)(2). Under this standard, a

petitioner must show that reasonable jurists could debate whether

the petition should have been resolved in a different manner or

that the issues presented were adequate to deserve encouragement

to proceed further. Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. at 336

6

Case 1:10-cv-00438-SKO Document 6 Filed 05/25/10 Page 6 of 8
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

(quoting Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000)). A

certificate should issue if the Petitioner shows that 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 any procedural ruling. Slack v. McDaniel,

529 U.S. 473, 483-84 (2000). In determining this issue, a court

conducts an overview of the claims in the habeas petition,

generally assesses their merits, and determines whether the

resolution was debatable among jurists of reason or wrong. Id. 

It is necessary for an applicant to show more than an absence of

frivolity or the existence of mere good faith; however, it is not

necessary for an applicant to show that the appeal will succeed. 

Id. at 338. 

A district court must issue or deny a certificate of

appealability when it enters a final order adverse to the

applicant. Habeas Rule 11(a).

Here, because Petitioner’s claims are unexhausted or relate

only to conditions of confinement, jurists of reason would not

find it debatable whether the Court was correct in its ruling. 

Accordingly, Petitioner has not made a substantial showing of the

denial of a constitutional right, and the Court declines to issue

a certificate of appealability. 

V. Disposition

Accordingly, it is ORDERED that:

1) Insofar as the petition for writ of habeas corpus seeks

relief from law enforcement officers with respect to the injuries

allegedly inflicted on Petitioner upon his arrest and the

7

Case 1:10-cv-00438-SKO Document 6 Filed 05/25/10 Page 7 of 8
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

withholding of medical care thereafter, the petition is DISMISSED

without prejudice to Petitioner’s right to file a civil rights

action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1983; 

2) Insofar as the petition for writ of habeas corpus seeks

relief with respect to Petitioner’s convictions of assault and

resisting arrest, the petition for writ of habeas corpus is

DISMISSED for lack of exhaustion of state court remedies; 

3) The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to enter judgment and

close the case; 

4) The Court DECLINES to issue a certificate of

appealability; and

5) The Clerk is DIRECTED to mail to Petitioner a form for

filing a civil rights complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 by a

person in custody. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 24, 2010 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto 

ie14hj UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

8

Case 1:10-cv-00438-SKO Document 6 Filed 05/25/10 Page 8 of 8