Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_10-cv-00071/USCOURTS-caed-1_10-cv-00071-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
James D. Hartley
Respondent
Richard Soto
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

RICHARD SOTO, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

)

v. )

)

JAMES D. HARTLEY, Warden, ) 

 )

Respondent. )

)

 )

1:10-cv—00071-SMS-HC

ORDER TO PETITIONER TO SHOW CAUSE

WHY THE PETITION SHOULD NOT BE

DISMISSED FOR PETITIONER’S

FAILURE TO EXHAUST STATE REMEDIES

(Doc. 1)

Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a

petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 

The matter has been referred to the Magistrate Judge pursuant to

28 U.S.C.§ 636(b)(1) and Local Rules 72-302 and 72-303. Pending

before the Court is Petitioner’s petition, which was filed in

this Court on April 1, 2009. The petition concerns the reversal

by the governor of California of a parole board’s decision, dated

October 25, 2007, to grant parole to Petitioner. (Pet. 15.)

I. Exhaustion of State Court Remedies 

A petitioner who is in state custody and wishes to challenge

collaterally a conviction by a petition for writ of habeas corpus

must exhaust state judicial remedies. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(1). 

1

Case 1:10-cv-00071-SMS Document 8 Filed 05/27/10 Page 1 of 5
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

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, 1162-63 (9th Cir.

1988). 

A petitioner can satisfy the exhaustion requirement by

providing the highest state court with the necessary jurisdiction

a full and fair opportunity to consider each claim before

presenting it to the federal court, and demonstrating that no

state remedy remains available. Picard v. Connor, 404 U.S. 270,

275-76 (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 v. Henry, 513 U.S. 364, 365

(1995) (legal basis); Kenney v. Tamayo-Reyes, 504 U.S. 1, 9-10

(1992), superceded by statute as stated in Williams v. Taylor,

529 U.S. 362 (2000) (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 (9th Cir. 2001); Hiivala

v. Wood, 195 F.3d 1098, 1106 (9th Cir. 1999); Keating v. Hood,

133 F.3d 1240, 1241 (9th Cir. 1998). 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

2

Case 1:10-cv-00071-SMS Document 8 Filed 05/27/10 Page 2 of 5
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

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 in Lyons v. Crawford, 232 F.3d 666, 668-69 (9th Cir.

2000), as amended by Lyons v. Crawford, 247 F.3d 904, 904-05 (9th

Cir. 2001), 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, see, e.g., Hiivala v. Wood, 195 

F.3d 1098, 1106-07 (9th Cir. 1999); Johnson v. Zenon,

88 F.3d 828, 830-31 (9th Cir. 1996); Crotts, 73 F.3d 

at 865.

...

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, 668-69 (9th Cir. 2000), as

amended by Lyons v. Crawford, 247 F.3d 904, 904-05 (9th Cir.

2001). 

Where none of a petitioner’s claims has been presented to

3

Case 1:10-cv-00071-SMS Document 8 Filed 05/27/10 Page 3 of 5
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

the highest state court as required by the exhaustion doctrine,

the Court must dismiss the petition. Raspberry v. Garcia, 448

F.3d 1150, 1154 (9th Cir. 2006); Jiminez v. Rice, 276 F.3d 478,

481 (9th Cir. 2001). The authority of a court to hold a mixed

petition in abeyance pending exhaustion of the unexhausted claims

has not been extended to petitions that contain no exhausted

claims. Raspberry, 448 F.3d at 1154.

Petitioner states that he filed a petition in the Los

Angeles County Superior Court, and he attaches as an exhibit a

decision of that Court dated February 18, 2009, denying

Petitioner’s petition for writ of habeas corpus. (Pet. 6, 51-53.) 

He does not describe any other proceedings in the state courts in

which he exhausted his claims. Therefore, 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. If Petitioner has not presented all of

his claims to the California Supreme Court, 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.

4

Case 1:10-cv-00071-SMS Document 8 Filed 05/27/10 Page 4 of 5
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

II. Order to Show Cause 

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

11-110.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 26, 2010 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder 

icido3 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

5

Case 1:10-cv-00071-SMS Document 8 Filed 05/27/10 Page 5 of 5