Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_10-cv-00326/USCOURTS-caed-1_10-cv-00326-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Douglas Papagni
Respondent
James Sanford Pobursky
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

JAMES SANFORD POBURSKY, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

)

v. )

)

)

DOUGLAS PAPAGNI, )

)

Respondent. )

____________________________________)

1:10-cv-00326 YNP (DLB) (HC)

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THE

PETITION SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED

FOR PETITIONER’S FAILURE TO

EXHAUST STATE REMEDIES

ORDER DISMISSING PETITIONER’S

MOTION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

AS DUPLICATIVE

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

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254.

On February 10, 2010, Petitioner filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus and a second,

identical document entitled “Emergency Request/Motion for writ of habeas Corpus” with this Court.

(Docs. #1, 3.)

DISCUSSION

Exhaustion

Rule 4 of the Rules Governing § 2254 Cases requires the Court to make 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; Hendricks v. Vasquez, 908 F.2d 490 (9th Cir.1990). Otherwise, the Court will order

Respondent to respond to the petition. Rule 5 of the Rules Governing § 2254 Cases.

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

U.S. District Court

E. D. California 1

Case 1:10-cv-00326-LJO-MJS Document 4 Filed 03/03/10 Page 1 of 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

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 (9th

Cir.1999); Keating v. Hood, 133 F.3d 1240, 1241 (9 Cir.1998). In Duncan, the United States th

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 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,

U.S. District Court

E. D. California 2

Case 1:10-cv-00326-LJO-MJS Document 4 Filed 03/03/10 Page 2 of 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

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, Petitioner presents no evidence

that he has fully exhausted his claims in the California Supreme Court. Petitioner states that he “has

exhausted all state appeals procedures, including Writ of Habeas to State Supreme Court on these

issues without affecting a remedy.” (Pet. 2.) Because Petitioner has not presented any case numbers,

dates, or documentation of any of his State court proceedings, the Court is disinclined to assume that

Petitioner has fully exhausted each and every claim presented in the instant petition. 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). Petitioner must inform the Court if each claim that

has 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 this information, the Court is unable to proceed to the merits of

the petition.

ORDER

1) Petitioner is hereby ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE why the petition should not be

dismissed for Petitioner’s failure to exhaust state remedies. Petitioner must 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.

2) Petitioner’s Emergency Request/Motion for Writ of Habeas Corpus is stricken as

duplicative of his Petition for writ of habeas corpus. (Doc. #3.) 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 3, 2010 /s/ Dennis L. Beck

3b142a UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

U.S. District Court

E. D. California 3

Case 1:10-cv-00326-LJO-MJS Document 4 Filed 03/03/10 Page 3 of 3