Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_19-cv-00850/USCOURTS-caed-1_19-cv-00850-4/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Gustavo Delacruz
Petitioner
Stu Sherman
Respondent

Document Text:

1

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

On June 19, 2019, Petitioner filed the instant federal petition for writ of habeas corpus. (Doc. 

1.) Respondent filed a motion to dismiss the petition on March 25, 2020. (Doc. 16.) Because the 

petition is unexhausted, the Court will recommend that Respondent’s motion to dismiss be 

GRANTED. 

DISCUSSION

A. Background

A jury found Petitioner guilty of second degree murder, gross vehicular manslaughter, and

driving with a license that was suspended or revoked for driving under the influence of alcohol and/or 

drugs. (Doc. 16 at 1.) He was sentenced to an indeterminate state prison term of fifteen years on the

murder count, ten years on the gross vehicular manslaughter count (stayed), and 180 days in jail for 

driving with a suspended or revoked license (concurrent). (Docs. 17-1, 17-2.) 

On February 19, 2019, the California Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment. (Doc. 17-2.) On 

GUSTAVO DELACRUZ,

 Petitioner,

v.

STU SHERMAN, Warden,

Respondent.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 1:19-cv-00850-NONE-JLT (HC)

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION TO 

GRANT RESPONDENT’S MOTION TO DISMISS 

FOR FAILURE TO EXHAUST

[Doc. 16]

[TWENTY-ONE DAY OBJECTION DEADLINE]

Case 1:19-cv-00850-DAD-JLT Document 20 Filed 05/12/20 Page 1 of 4
2

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

May 15, 2019, the California Supreme Court denied review. (Docs. 17-3, 17-4.) Petitioner did not file 

any state collateral actions challenging the state court judgment. (Doc. 16 at 2.) 

On June 19, 2019, Petitioner filed the instant federal petition for writ of habeas corpus. (Doc. 

1.) On July 15, 2019, the Court dismissed the petition with leave to file a first amended petition. (Doc. 

5.) Petitioner filed a first amended petition on August 9, 2019. (Doc. 6.) On September 20, 2019, the 

Court dismissed the first amended petition and directed Petitioner to file a second amended petition. 

(Doc. 7.) Petitioner filed a second amended petition on October 7, 2019. (Doc. 8.) On November 7, 

2019, the Court issued an order to show cause why the petition should not be dismissed for failure to 

exhaust state remedies. (Doc. 9.) Petitioner filed a response to the order to show cause on December 9, 

2019. (Doc. 10.) Respondent filed a motion to dismiss the petition on March 25, 2020. (Doc. 16.) On 

April 17, 2020, Petitioner filed an opposition. (Doc. 18.) Respondent filed a reply on April 22, 2020. 

(Doc. 19.)

B. Exhaustion

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). 

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). 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. 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 

Case 1:19-cv-00850-DAD-JLT Document 20 Filed 05/12/20 Page 2 of 4
3

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 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), as amended by Lyons v. 

Crawford, 247 F.3d 904, 904-5 (9th Cir. 2001).

Petitioner did not properly present his federal claims in the state courts. As Respondent argues,

the federal petition includes only unexhausted claims that were not presented to the California 

Supreme Court. (Doc. 16 at 4-5; Doc. 19 at 1-2.) Because Petitioner has not properly presented his 

claims for federal relief in the state courts, the Court will recommend dismissal of the petition for 

failure to exhaust state remedies. Raspberry v. Garcia, 448 F.3d 1150, 1154 (9th Cir. 2006); Jiminez v. 

Rice, 276 F.3d 478, 481 (9th Cir. 2001). 

RECOMMENDATION

Accordingly, the Court RECOMMENDS that Respondent’s motion to dismiss the petition be 

GRANTED and the petition be DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for failure to exhaust.

This Findings and Recommendation is submitted to the United States District Court Judge 

assigned to this case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(B) and Rule 304 of the 

Local Rules of Practice for the United States District Court, Eastern District of California. 

Case 1:19-cv-00850-DAD-JLT Document 20 Filed 05/12/20 Page 3 of 4
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

Within twenty-one days after being served with a copy, Petitioner may file written objections with the 

Court. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and 

Recommendation.” The Court will then review the Magistrate Judge’s ruling pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 

636 (b)(1)(C). Failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the 

District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 11, 2020 /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:19-cv-00850-DAD-JLT Document 20 Filed 05/12/20 Page 4 of 4