Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_16-cv-01317/USCOURTS-caed-1_16-cv-01317-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Gar T. Friedman
Respondent
Robey Hairston
Petitioner
Isen
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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ROBEY HAIRSTON,

Petitioner,

v.

JUDGE GAR T. FRIEDMAN AND 

DISTRICT ATTORNEY ISEN,

Respondents.

No. 1:16-cv-01317-AWI-SKO HC

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION 

THAT COURT DISMISS PETITION 

FOR FAILURE TO EXHAUST CLAIMS

Screening Memorandum

Petitioner Robey Hairston is a state prison proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of 

habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 

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 

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 History

Petitioner was convicted of assault (California Penal Code § 3391) in Kern County 

Superior Court. On July 31, 2016, the Superior Court sentenced Petitioner to a prison term of 12 

Case 1:16-cv-01317-AWI-SKO Document 11 Filed 10/24/16 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

2

years. Petitioner filed neither a direct appeal of his conviction nor a habeas petition in California 

State Court. 

On September 1, 2016, Petitioner filed a habeas petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 in 

the Sacramento Division of this Court. The petition was transferred to the Fresno Division on 

September 7, 2016.

III. Petitioner Has Not Exhausted Claims

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

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.

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 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).

///

///

Case 1:16-cv-01317-AWI-SKO Document 11 Filed 10/24/16 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

3

In this case, Petitioner has not yet pursued any state remedy. Accordingly, the Court must 

dismiss the petition. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(1); Rose, 455 U.S. at 521-22. 1

IV. 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 

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 

 

1 The petition presents multiple other deficiencies that would require amendment if the petition were exhausted. In 

the absence of exhaustion, the Court declines to address those deficiencies.

Case 1:16-cv-01317-AWI-SKO Document 11 Filed 10/24/16 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

4

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 is not entitled 

to pursue federal habeas corpus relief debatable, wrong, or deserving of encouragement to 

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

V. Conclusion and Recommendation

The undersigned recommends that the Court dismiss the Petition for writ of habeas corpus 

without prejudice and decline to issue a certificate of appealability.

These Findings and Recommendations will be submitted to the United States District 

Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C ' 636(b)(1). Within thirty 

(30) days after being served with these Findings and Recommendations, Petitioner may file 

written objections with the Court. The document should be captioned AObjections to Magistrate 

Judge=s Findings and Recommendations.@ Petitioner is advised that failure to file objections 

within the specified time may constitute waiver of the right to appeal the District Court's order. 

Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 839 ((9th Cir. 2014) (citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 

1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 21, 2016 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto .

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:16-cv-01317-AWI-SKO Document 11 Filed 10/24/16 Page 4 of 4