Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_10-cv-00737/USCOURTS-caed-1_10-cv-00737-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Stephen Garcia
Petitioner
Stephen Klepfield
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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

STEPHEN GARCIA, ) 1:10-cv-00737-JLT HC

) 

Petitioner, ) ORDER DISMISSING PETITION FOR

) WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS FOR

) LACK OF EXHAUSTION (Doc. 1)

v. ) 

) 

STEPHEN KLEPFIELD, JUDGE, ) ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT 

) TO ENTER JUDGMENT AND CLOSE

Respondent. ) THE FILE 

____________________________________) 

CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY

NOT REQUIRED

Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se on a petition for writ of habeas corpus

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. On May 7, 2010, Petitioner filed his written consent to the

jurisdiction of the United States Magistrate Judge for all purposes. (Doc. 3). 

The instant petition was filed on April 28, 2010. (Doc. 1). In his petition, Petitioner alleges

that he is presently incarcerated in the Fresno County Jail for a conviction for possession of

marijuana in the Fresno County Superior Court. (Doc. 1, p. 2). Petitioner’s sole ground for relief is

as follows: “The Court sentenced me to 4 yrs. probation for missing the court date and I didn’t even

have any charges. I was incarcerated on the day I was supposed to be in Court.” (Id., p. 3). Under

his “supporting facts,” Petitioner explains that he had been sentenced to five one-hour classes in a

drug diversion program, that he wanted to attend an inpatient program, that he obtained permission

to do so, and that he brought proof of completion of the program to court. (Id.). Then, on January

1

Case 1:10-cv-00737-JLT Document 4 Filed 05/13/10 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

11, 2009, while Petitioner was in jail in Fresno, the trial judge “got mad” and sentenced Petitioner to

four years’ felony probation for missing a court date. (Id.). 

DISCUSSION

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

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

from the face of the petition . . . that the petitioner is not entitled to relief." Rule 4 of the Rules

Governing § 2254 Cases; Hendricks v. Vasquez, 908 F.2d 490 (9th Cir.1990). Otherwise, the Court

will order Respondent to respond to the petition. Rule 5 of the Rules Governing § 2254 Cases. A

preliminary review of the Petition reveals that Petitioner may not have exhausted his state court

remedies.

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); 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 (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; Lyons 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). In Duncan, the United States

Supreme Court reiterated the rule as follows: 

2

Case 1:10-cv-00737-JLT Document 4 Filed 05/13/10 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

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. Recently, 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 “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. 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). 

Here, as discussed, Petitioner is challenging events that apparently occurred in the Fresno

County Superior Court on January 11, 2009. Nowhere in the petition does Petitioner allege that he

has exhausted this claim in state court by presenting it to the California Supreme Court. Indeed,

Petitioner candidly acknowledges that he did not seek review in the California Supreme Court for

this claim. (Doc. 1, p. 5). 

From the foregoing, the Court concludes that Petitioner has not presented his claim to the

California Supreme Court as required by the exhaustion doctrine. Because Petitioner has not

presented his claim for federal relief to the California Supreme Court, the Court must dismiss the

petition. See Calderon v. United States Dist. Court, 107 F.3d 756, 760 (9th Cir. 1997) (en banc); 

Greenawalt v. Stewart, 105 F.3d 1268, 1273 (9th Cir. 1997). The Court cannot consider a petition

that is entirely unexhausted. Rose v. Lundy, 455 U.S. 509, 521-22 (1982); Calderon, 107 F.3d at

3

Case 1:10-cv-00737-JLT Document 4 Filed 05/13/10 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

760. 1

ORDER

Accordingly, the Court HEREBY ORDERS as follows:

1. The petition for writ of habeas corpus (Doc. 1), is DISMISSED for lack of

exhaustion; and,

2. The Clerk of the Court is DIRECTED to enter judgment and close the file.

3. No certificate of appealability is required.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 12, 2010 /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston 

9j7khi UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

The Court notes that this is the fourth federal petition filed in this Court by Petitioner within the last month.

1

Petitioner also filed case no. 1:10-cv-00675-JLT on April 16, 2010, case no. 1:10-cv-00625-JLT on April 9, 2010, and case

no. 1:10-cv-00736-JLT, filed on April 28, 2010. All three cases have been dismissed because Petitioner was complaining

about conditions of confinement rather than the fact or duration of that confinement or, in the latter case, because Petitioner

had failed to exhaust his claim in state court. In each of the orders dismissing these three cases, the Court attempted to

explain to Petitioner the relatively narrow limits of federal habeas jurisdiction by which this Court is bound. The Petitioner

is advised that his many complaints about his treatment by the Fresno County Jail and the Fresno County Superior Court do

not automatically translate into viable federal habeas claims. Petitioner is advised that he must refrain from filing essentially

frivolous federal habeas petitions, which divert considerable judicial resources from the many other legitimate habeas cases

now pending in this Court, until such time as he has a cognizable, and fully exhausted, habeas claim to pursue.

4

Case 1:10-cv-00737-JLT Document 4 Filed 05/13/10 Page 4 of 4