Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-05272/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-05272-2/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Nhat D. Mai
Petitioner
Joe McGrath
Respondent

Document Text:

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

NHAT D. MAI,

Petitioner,

 v.

JOE McGRATH, Warden,

Respondent. ______________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

) 

No. C 05-5272 MMC (PR)

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO

DISMISS

(Docket No. 10)

Petitioner Nhat D. Mai, a California prisoner incarcerated at Pelican Bay State Prison

and proceeding pro se, filed the above-titled petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to

28 U.S.C. § 2254. After reviewing the petition, the Court found cognizable petitioner’s

claims that he waived his right to a jury trial and pled guilty as a result of the ineffective

assistance of trial counsel. Specifically, petitioner claims trial counsel was ineffective for

failing to investigate the illegality of a recorded conversation between petitioner and his

father, and for failing to file a motion to suppress the conversation. He also claims trial

counsel was ineffective for failing to employ a Vietnamese interpreter, “especially during

plea negotiations.” The Court ordered respondent to file an answer showing cause why the

petition should not be granted based on these claims or, in the alternative, a motion to dismiss

on procedural grounds. Respondent chose the latter course, and has filed a motion to dismiss

the petition for failure to exhaust. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)-(c). Petitioner has filed an

opposition, and respondent has filed a reply. 

BACKGROUND

In 2003, petitioner pled guilty in Santa Clara County Superior Court to one count of

murder, two counts of attempted murder and one count of assault with a deadly weapon. He

Case 3:05-cv-05272-MMC Document 15 Filed 07/26/07 Page 1 of 4
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

was sentenced to a term of forty years to life in state prison. 

On direct appeal, petitioner raised a Fourth Amendment challenge to his conviction

and objected to the trial court’s imposition of a restitution fine. The California Court of

Appeal affirmed the judgment. Petitioner did not file a petition for review in the California

Supreme Court. 

While his direct appeal was pending, petitioner filed a state petition for a writ of

habeas corpus in the California Court of Appeal. In that petition he claimed that his appellate

counsel rendered ineffective assistance of counsel by not asserting on appeal that petitioner’s

trial counsel had rendered ineffective assistance of counsel. The California Court of Appeal

summarily denied the petition without citation or comment on September 8, 2004. Petitioner

then filed a state petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the California Supreme Court, again

asserting claims of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel. The California Supreme Court

summarily denied the petition without citation or comment on September 7, 2005. 

DISCUSSION

Prisoners in state custody who wish to challenge collaterally in federal habeas

proceedings either the fact or length of their confinement are first required to exhaust state

judicial remedies, either on direct appeal or through collateral proceedings, by presenting the

highest state court available with a fair opportunity to rule on the merits of each and every

claim they seek to raise in federal court. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)-(c). The exhaustion-ofstate-remedies doctrine reflects a policy of federal-state comity to give the state “the initial

‘opportunity to pass upon and correct alleged violations of its prisoners’ federal rights.’” 

Picard v. Connor, 404 U.S. 270, 275 (1971) (citations omitted). The exhaustion requirement

is satisfied only if the federal claim has been “fairly presented” to the state courts. Id.

Respondent argues that the instant petition is unexhausted because petitioner never

presented his ineffective assistance of trial counsel claims to the California Supreme Court

for decision. In his opposition to respondent’s motion, petitioner acknowledges that he did

not raise his ineffective assistance of trial counsel claims in his original petition for a writ of

habeas corpus in the California Supreme Court, but asserts that before the petition was

Case 3:05-cv-05272-MMC Document 15 Filed 07/26/07 Page 2 of 4
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

denied he submitted a supplemental petition to the Supreme Court which did include those

claims. Petitioner has attached a copy of his hand-written supplemental petition, which is

stamped “Received” by the Clerk of the Supreme Court on May 16, 2005, but is not 

file-stamped and does not have a case number stamped on it. 

Respondent replies that the receipt of petitioner’s supplemental petition by the clerk of

the court does not establish that the supplemental petition actually was filed and considered

by the California Supreme Court. Respondent points to California Rules of Court, Rules

41(b)(1) and 46, which together provide that a document will be deemed filed on the date it is

received by the clerk of the court unless it does not conform to the rules of court. Rule 60 of

the California Rules of Court provides that a pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus must

be filed on a state habeas corpus form, although the court may for good cause permit the

filing of a petition that is not on the form. Petitioner’s supplemental petition was not

submitted on the form. As further evidence that petitioner’s supplemental petition was not

filed, respondent has attached to his reply a copy of the California Supreme Court’s docket

for petitioner’s case. It shows that a petition for a writ of habeas corpus was “filed” in that

court on October 28, 2004, that a supplement from petitioner was “received” by the court on

May 16, 2005, and that the petition was denied on September 7, 2005. (Ex. F.)

Having reviewed the papers and documents submitted by the parties, this Court

concludes that petitioner has not established that he fairly presented his ineffective assistance

of trial counsel claims to the California Supreme Court for decision. The record contains no

evidence that the supplemental petition actually was filed and considered by the California

Supreme Court. Rather, as respondent submits, it appears that the Supreme Court received

the petition but did not file it because it did not comply with the rules of court. Accordingly,

respondent’s motion to dismiss the petition as unexhausted is GRANTED.

Because petitioner is proceeding pro se, however, the Court will grant him one further

opportunity to establish that his claims are exhausted, by filing an amended petition which

includes proof that his supplemental state court petition was filed and considered by the

California Supreme Court. If he is unable to do so, the instant petition will be dismissed. 

Case 3:05-cv-05272-MMC Document 15 Filed 07/26/07 Page 3 of 4
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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 Granting Motion to Dismiss

G:\PRO-SE\MMC\HC.05\05-5272.mtd.exh.grant

4

CONCLUSION

For the reasons stated above, respondent’s motion to dismiss is GRANTED and the

instant petition is hereby DISMISSED with leave to amend.

Within sixty (60) days of the date of this order, petitioner shall file with the Court and

serve on respondent an amended petition, which includes proof that his supplemental state

court petition was filed and considered by the California Supreme Court. The failure to do so

will result in the dismissal of this petition without prejudice, for failure to exhaust state

remedies. 

This order terminates Docket No. 10.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: July 26, 2007 _________________________ MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge

Case 3:05-cv-05272-MMC Document 15 Filed 07/26/07 Page 4 of 4