Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_10-cv-00379/USCOURTS-caed-1_10-cv-00379-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Matthew Cate
Respondent
Ramiro Lemus Magana
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

RAMIRO LEMUS MAGANA, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

v. )

)

)

MATTHEW CATE, Secretary, )

)

Respondent. )

 )

1:10-CV-00379 LJO GSA HC 

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

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

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. This action has been referred to this Court pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Local Rule 302.

On March 4, 2010, Petitioner filed the instant petition for writ of habeas corpus in this Court.

Petitioner challenges his 2009 convictions in Kings County Superior Court of possession of

methamphetamine for sale and possession of marijuana for sale. He presents the following five (5)

claims for relief: 1) He contends his convictions violate the double jeopardy clause of the Fifth

Amendment to the Constitution; 2) He argues the California double jeopardy protection under Cal.

Penal Code § 654 is impermissibly vague; 3) He claims the case should be remanded for

resentencing because the trial court abused its discretion in imposing a consecutive sentence on the

second count; 4) He argues count II should be stayed pursuant to Cal. Penal Code § 654; and 5) He

contends he received ineffective assistance of appellate counsel due to counsel’s failure to challenge

the search and seizure on appeal.

U.S. District Court

E. D. California cd 1

Case 1:10-cv-00379-LJO-GSA Document 7 Filed 03/26/10 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

DISCUSSION

A. Preliminary Review of Petition

Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases provides in pertinent part:

If it plainly appears from the petition and any attached exhibits that the petitioner is not

entitled to relief in the district court, the judge must dismiss the petition and direct the clerk

to notify the petitioner. 

The Advisory Committee Notes to Rule 8 indicate that 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. See Herbst v. Cook, 260 F.3d 1039 (9

th

Cir.2001). 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 granted. Jarvis v. Nelson,

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

B. Exhaustion of State 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 (9 Cir. 1988). th

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 (9 Cir. 1996). A federal court will find that the highest state court was given a full th

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 (9 Cir.1999); th

U.S. District Court

E. D. California cd 2

Case 1:10-cv-00379-LJO-GSA Document 7 Filed 03/26/10 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

Keating v. Hood, 133 F.3d 1240, 1241 (9 Cir.1998). In Duncan, the United States Supreme Court th

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, 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). 

Upon review of the instant petition for writ of habeas corpus, it appears that Petitioner has

not presented his numerous claims to the California Supreme Court. He indicates in his petition that

he has only presented his double jeopardy claim to the California Supreme Court. If this is so, the

Court cannot proceed to the merits of those claims. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(1). It is possible, however,

that Petitioner has presented his claims to the California Supreme Court and simply neglected to

inform this Court. Thus, Petitioner must inform the Court if his claims have been presented to the

California Supreme Court, and if possible, provide the Court with a copy of the petition filed in the

California Supreme Court, along with a copy of any ruling made by the California Supreme Court. 

Without knowing what claims have been presented to the California Supreme Court, the Court is

unable to proceed to the merits of the petition.

U.S. District Court

E. D. California cd 3

Case 1:10-cv-00379-LJO-GSA Document 7 Filed 03/26/10 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

ORDER

Accordingly, Petitioner is ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE why the petition should not be

dismissed for Petitioner’s failure to exhaust state remedies. Petitioner is ORDERED to inform the

Court what claims have been presented to the California Supreme Court within thirty (30) days of

the date of service of this order. 

Petitioner is forewarned that failure to follow this order will result in dismissal of the petition

pursuant to Local Rule 110.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: March 26, 2010 /s/ Gary S. Austin 

6i0kij UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

U.S. District Court

E. D. California cd 4

Case 1:10-cv-00379-LJO-GSA Document 7 Filed 03/26/10 Page 4 of 4