Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_10-cv-00646/USCOURTS-caed-2_10-cv-00646-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Gary Swarthout
Respondent
Reginald Whitfield
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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

REGINALD WHITFIELD, 

Petitioner, Civ. No. S-10-646 KJM P

vs.

GARY SWARTHOUT, Warden,

Respondent. ORDER

 /

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

corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. He has consented to magistrate judge jurisdiction. 

Petitioner challenges his Sacramento County conviction on burglary and petty theft with a prior

petty theft and his three strikes sentence of twenty-eight years to life. The petition raises four

grounds: petitioner’s sentence constitutes cruel and unusual punishment; the identification of

petitioner was unconstitutionally suggestive; he was denied his right to confront his codefendant; and trial counsel was ineffective. 

On May 7, 2010, this court directed petitioner to inform the court which issues in

his petition had been exhausted, in light of petitioner’s notification that a habeas petition was

pending in the California Supreme Court. In response, petitioner has identified the following

claims currently pending before the California Supreme Court: ineffective assistance of counsel;

1

Case 2:10-cv-00646-KJM-CKD Document 8 Filed 06/11/10 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

denial of right to confront his co-defendant; “unequal protection and selective prosecution of codefendant;” denial of requested fingerprint test; suggestive and tainted identification procedures;

denial of right to challenge his prior convictions. He says that two claims have been exhausted:

ineffective assistance of counsel and cruel and unusual punishment. Docket No. 6 at 1-2. He

asks for a stay of these proceedings. 

The exhaustion of state court remedies is a prerequisite to the granting of a

petition for writ of habeas corpus. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(1). If exhaustion is to be waived, it must

be waived explicitly by respondents’ counsel. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(3).1

 A waiver of exhaustion,

thus, may not be implied or inferred. A petitioner satisfies the exhaustion requirement by

providing the highest state court with a full and fair opportunity to consider all claims before

presenting them to the federal court. Picard v. Connor, 404 U.S. 270, 276 (1971); Middleton v.

Cupp, 768 F.2d 1083, 1086 (9th Cir. 1986). 

The state court has had an opportunity to rule on the merits when the petitioner

has fairly presented a claim to that court. The fair presentation requirement is met where the

petitioner has described the operative facts and legal theory on which his claim is based. Picard,

404 U.S. at 277-78. Generally, it is “not enough that all the facts necessary to support the federal

claim were before the state courts . . . or that a somewhat similar state-law claim was made.” 

Anderson v. Harless, 459 U.S. 4, 6 (1982). Instead, 

[i]f 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 v. Henry, 513 U.S. 364, 365 (1995). Accordingly, “a claim for relief in habeas corpus

must include reference to a specific federal constitutional guarantee, as well as a statement of the

1

 A petition may be denied on the merits without exhaustion of state court remedies. 28

U.S.C. § 2254(b)(2). 

2

Case 2:10-cv-00646-KJM-CKD Document 8 Filed 06/11/10 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

facts which entitle the petitioner to relief.” Gray v. Netherland, 518 U.S. 152 (1996). The

United States Supreme Court has held that a federal district court may not entertain a petition for

habeas corpus unless the petitioner has exhausted state remedies with respect to each of the

claims raised. Rose v. Lundy, 455 U.S. 509 (1982). A mixed petition containing both exhausted

and unexhausted claims must be dismissed. However, petitioner will be granted thirty days to

file an amended petition raising only exhausted claims.2

Petitioner has requested a stay. The court has the authority to stay a mixed habeas

petition to allow petitioner to exhaust state court remedies if the unexhausted claims are

potentially meritorious and there is good cause for petitioner’s failure to exhaust earlier. Rhines

v. Weber, 544 U.S. 269, 277 (2005). Petitioner has not met this standard: it is difficult to discern

the basis of some of the unexhausted claims and there is nothing explaining why the issues were

not raised earlier.

Finally, petitioner has filed a document entitled “motion to enter criminal history

and background.” It appears that petitioner is offering the exhibits attached to the motion in

support of his cruel and unusual punishment claim. He may use these documents as exhibits

with his amended petition. 

In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Petitioner’s motion for a stay (docket no. 6) is denied; 

2. Petitioner’s motion to enter criminal history (docket no. 7) is denied;

3. Petitioner’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus is dismissed; and

2

 Petitioner is cautioned that if he chooses to proceed on an amended petition raising

only exhausted claims he will risk forfeiting consideration of the unexhausted claims in this or

any other federal court. See McCleskey v. Zant, 499 U.S. 467 (1991); see also Rose, 455 U.S. at

520-21; Rule 9(b), Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases.

 Petitioner is further cautioned that the habeas corpus statute imposes a one year statute

of limitations for filing non-capital habeas corpus petitions in federal court. In most cases, the

one year period will start to run on the date on which the state court judgment became final by

the conclusion of direct review or the expiration of time for seeking direct review, although the

statute of limitations is tolled while a properly filed application for state post-conviction or other

collateral review is pending. 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d). 

3

Case 2:10-cv-00646-KJM-CKD Document 8 Filed 06/11/10 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

4. Petitioner is granted thirty days from the date of this order to file an amended

petition raising only exhausted claims. Failure to comply with this order will result in a

recommendation that this action be dismissed without prejudice.

DATED: June 10, 2010. 

2

whit0646.103

4

Case 2:10-cv-00646-KJM-CKD Document 8 Filed 06/11/10 Page 4 of 4