Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-01618/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-01618-4/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Danny Atterbury
Petitioner
Dave Grazaini
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

United States District Court

Eastern District of California 

Danny Atterbury,

Petitioner, No. Civ. S 05-1618 FCD PAN P 

vs. Findings and Recommendations

Dave Grazaini,

Respondent.

-oOoPetitioner was charged in the California Superior Court with

two counts of attempted murder with great bodily injury in 1989. 

After waiving his right to a jury trial, a judge found petitioner

guilty but insane at the time of the crime and petitioner was

committed to a mental health facility. See Cal. Pen. Code §§

1026, 1026.5. 

Petitioner seeks a writ of habeas corpus upon the ground he

is detained in a state hospital beyond his release date. 28

U.S.C. § 2254. Respondent moves to dismiss upon the ground 

Case 2:05-cv-01618-FCD-PAN Document 34 Filed 12/13/05 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

2

petitioner failed to exhaust available state remedies. 

Petitioner opposes.

A district court may not grant a petition for a writ of

habeas corpus unless “the applicant has exhausted the remedies

available in the courts of the State,” or unless there is no

State corrective process or “circumstances exist that render such

process ineffective to protect the rights of the applicant.” 28

U.S.C. § 2254(b)(1). A petitioner satisfies the exhaustion

requirement by presenting both the operative facts and the legal

theory to the highest state court. Duncan v. Henry, 513 U.S.

364, 365 (1995); Picard v. Connor, 404 U.S. 270, 278 (1971). 

General appeals to constitutional principles, such as due

process, equal protection and the right to a fair trial, are

insufficient to exhaust a claim. See Gray v. Netherland, 518

U.S. 152, 162-63 (1996). A petitioner must identify the

“specific federal constitutional guarantee,” Gray, 518 U.S. at

162-63, even if the facts make a constitutional theory “selfevident.” See Anderson v. Harless, 459 U.S. 4, 7 (1982). 

A claim is unexhausted if any state remedy is available. See

O’Sullivan v. Boerckel, 526 U.S. 838 (1999) (petitioner must seek

discretionary review from state court of last resort); Roberts v.

Arave, 874 F.2d 528, 529 (9th Cir. 1988)(no exhaustion where

state supreme court referred petitioner’s appeal of trial court’s

denial of post-conviction relief to lower appellate court and

petitioner failed to appeal lower court’s disposition of that

appeal to state supreme court). An unexhausted petition must be

Case 2:05-cv-01618-FCD-PAN Document 34 Filed 12/13/05 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

1

 I note claims two, three and four are moot if the August 2005 hearing

occurred. See Spencer v. Kemna, 523 U.S. 1, 8, 14 (1998).

3

dismissed. Picard, 404 U.S. at 271. 

Petitioner claims (1) he is detained beyond his release

date; (2) the venue of a hearing on the state’s petition to

extend his commitment should be changed; (3) the superior court

judge presiding over the commitment proceedings should recuse

himself; and (4) his state attorney should withdraw because he

has a conflict of interest. 

Petitioner has not presented his first claim to the

California Supreme Court in any form and so it is unexhausted.

While he presented his second, third and fourth claims to

the California Supreme Court, he did not articulate a specific

federal constitutional theory of relief. These claims therefore

are not exhausted.1

I therefore recommend respondent’s November 21, 2005, motion

be granted and this action be dismissed for failure to exhaust

available state remedies. 

Pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l), these

findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States

District Judge assigned to this case. Written objections may be

filed within 20 days of service of these findings and

recommendations. The document should be captioned “Objections to

Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” The district 

///

///

Case 2:05-cv-01618-FCD-PAN Document 34 Filed 12/13/05 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

4

judge may accept, reject, or modify these findings and

recommendations in whole or in part.

Dated: December 13, 2005. 

 /s/ Peter A. Nowinski 

 PETER A. NOWINSKI

 Magistrate Judge

Case 2:05-cv-01618-FCD-PAN Document 34 Filed 12/13/05 Page 4 of 4