Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-00277/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-00277-2/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Arnold Schwarzenegger
Respondent
Roderick Washington
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 This information is derived from the petition for writ of habeas corpus.

1

U.S. District Court

 E. D. California cd 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RODERICK WASHINGTON, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

v. )

)

)

ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER, )

)

Respondent. )

 )

1:07-CV-00277 LJO SMS HC

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION

REGARDING PETITION FOR WRIT OF

HABEAS CORPUS 

[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.

BACKGROUND1

On June 28, 2006, Petitioner was convicted in the Kings County Superior Court of indecent

exposure in violation of California Penal Code § 314, subd. 1. As a result of his conviction,

Petitioner is required to register as a sex offender pursuant to Cal. Penal Code § 290.

Petitioner appealed his conviction to the California Court of Appeal, Fifth Appellate District

(hereinafter “5 DCA”); the 5 DCA affirmed the judgment. th th

Case 1:07-cv-00277-LJO -SMS Document 9 Filed 03/16/07 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

U.S. District Court

 E. D. California cd 2

Petitioner states he then filed a petition for review in the California Supreme Court; his

petition was denied. 

On January 29, 2007, Petitioner filed the instant federal petition for writ of habeas corpus in

the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California, Sacramento Division. By order

of the Court dated February 21, 2007, the case was transferred to the Fresno Division and received in

this Court. The petition contains the following six grounds for relief: (1) Petitioner claims he

received ineffective assistance of appellate counsel; (2) He claims he was denied his right to selfrepresentation; (3) He claims the prosecutor committed misconduct by failing to disclose favorable

evidence; (4) He claims he was subjected to an illegal search and seizure; (5) He claims the judge

was biased and prejudiced against him; and (6) He claims the jury committed misconduct.

DISCUSSION

I. Preliminary Review of Petition

Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases allows a district court to dismiss a

petition if it “plainly appears from the petition and any attached exhibits that the petitioner is not

entitled to relief in the district court . . . .” The Advisory Committee Notes to Rule 8 indicate that the

court may dismiss a petition for writ of habeas corpus, either on its own motion under Rule 4,

pursuant to the respondent’s motion to dismiss, or after an answer to the petition has been filed. See

Herbst v. Cook, 260 F.3d 1039 (9 Cir.2001). th

II. Failure to State a Cognizable Federal Claim

In his petition before this Court, Petitioner presents six grounds for relief. However, none of

them present a cognizable federal claim. In Ground One, Petitioner claims he received ineffective

assistance from his counsel on appeal. He argues appellate counsel failed to raise the issues he now

raises on appeal. 

Effective assistance of appellate counsel is guaranteed by the Due Process Clause of the

Fourteenth Amendment. Evitts v. Lucey, 469 U.S. 387, 391-405 (1985). Claims of ineffective

assistance of appellate counsel are reviewed according to Strickland 's two-pronged test. See, e.g.,

Miller v. Keeney, 882 F.2d 1428, 1433 (9th Cir.1989); United States v. Birtle, 792 F.2d 846, 

847 (9th Cir.1986). A defendant must therefore show that counsel's advice fell below an objective

Case 1:07-cv-00277-LJO -SMS Document 9 Filed 03/16/07 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

U.S. District Court

 E. D. California cd 3

standard of reasonableness and that there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel's

unprofessional errors, defendant would have prevailed on appeal. Miller, 882 F.2d at 1434 & n. 9, 

citing Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 688, 694 (1984); Birtle, 792 F.2d at 849. However,

appellate counsel does not have a constitutional duty to raise every nonfrivolous issue requested by

defendant. Jones v. Barnes, 463 U.S. 745, 751-54 (1983); Miller, 882 F.2d at 1434 n. 10. The

weeding out of weaker issues is widely recognized as one of the hallmarks of effective appellate

advocacy. Id. at 1434. As a result, appellate counsel will frequently remain above an objective

standard of competence and have caused her client no prejudice for the same reason--because she

declined to raise a weak issue. Id.

In this case as will be discussed below, each of Petitioner’s grounds for relief fail to present

cognizable federal claims. Therefore, Petitioner has failed to demonstrate error on the part of counsel

or prejudice resulting therefrom.

In his second ground for relief, Petitioner alleges he was denied his right to selfrepresentation. At trial, Petitioner apparently chose to represent himself. He claims that while

conducting his defense, he was obstructed by prison officials and, because of this, was unable to

subpoena five defense witnesses. Petitioner’s claim is completely conclusory and unsupported by any

evidence. "Conclusory allegations which are not supported by a statement of specific facts do not

warrant habeas relief." James v. Borg, 24 F.3d 20, 29 (9th Cir.1994); Jones v. Gomez, 66 F.3d 199,

204-05 (9 Cir.1995) (holding that conclusory allegations made with no reference to the record or th

any document do not merit habeas relief); Allard v. Nelson, 423 F.2d 1216, 1217 (9 Cir.1970) th

(Conclusory allegations in a habeas petition fail to state a claim and do not suffice to shift the burden

to the state to answer an order to show cause.); Campbell v. Wood 18 F.3d 662, 679 (9th Cir.1994),

citing Boehme v. Maxwell, 423 F.2d 1056, 1058 (9th Cir.1970) ("An evidentiary hearing is not

required on allegations that are "conclusory and wholly devoid of specifics.'"); O’Bremski v. Maass,

915 F.2d 418, 420 (9 Cir.1990) (Notice pleading is insufficient; the petitioner must state sufficient th

facts).

In his third ground for relief, Petitioner claims the prosecutor committed misconduct by

failing to disclose favorable evidence. He further claims he was denied evidence by his private

Case 1:07-cv-00277-LJO -SMS Document 9 Filed 03/16/07 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

U.S. District Court

 E. D. California cd 4

investigator. As with Ground Two, Petitioner’s claim is completely conclusory and unsupported by

any evidence. Petitioner does not disclose what favorable evidence was denied him or how this

evidence would have altered the outcome of the trial.

Petitioner next claims he was subjected to an illegal search and seizure. In support of this

claim, however, Petitioner merely attempts to retry issues of fact. In essence, his argument is that his

version of the facts was not accepted. Moreover, a federal district court cannot grant habeas corpus

relief on the ground that evidence was obtained by an unconstitutional search and seizure if the state

court has provided the petitioner with a "full and fair opportunity to litigate" the Fourth Amendment

issue. Stone v. Powell, 428 U.S. 465, 494 (1976); Woolery v. Arvan, 8 F.3d 1325, 1326 (9 Cir. th

1993), cert denied, 511 U.S. 1057 (1994). The only inquiry this Court can make is whether

petitioner had a fair opportunity to litigate his claim, not whether petitioner did litigate nor even

whether the court correctly decided the claim. Ortiz-Sandoval v. Gomez, 81 F.3d 891, 899 (9 Cir. th

1996); see also, Gordon v. Duran, 895 F.2d 610, 613 (9 Cir. 1990) (holding that because Cal. Penal th

Code § 1538.5 provides opportunity to challenge evidence, dismissal under Stone was necessary).

In his fifth claim, Petitioner alleges the judge was biased and prejudiced against him. Once

again, his claims are completely conclusory and not supported by any evidence. Petitioner merely

makes a broad assertion that the judge was biased because he ruled against Petitioner on certain

motions. Broad, conclusory allegations of unconstitutionality are insufficient to state a cognizable

claim. Jones v. Gomez, 66 F.3d 199, 205 (9 Cir.1995); Greyson v. Kellam, 937 F.2d 1409, 1412 th

(9th Cir.1991) (bald assertions of ineffective assistance of counsel did not entitle the petitioner to an

evidentiary hearing). 

In his final claim for relief, Petitioner alleges jury misconduct. As with the balance of

Petitioner’s grounds, his claim is completely unfounded and conclusory. He submits no evidence of

any misconduct on the part of a juror. Petitioner broadly claims he was denied the right to a jury trial

of his peers because there were no African-Americans on the panel. He states he “was given an all

white and/or Mexican jury.” However, his broad and unfounded assertion fails to present a

cognizable claim. Petitioner presents no evidence that any African-Americans were excluded from

the panel on the basis of race.

Case 1:07-cv-00277-LJO -SMS Document 9 Filed 03/16/07 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

U.S. District Court

 E. D. California cd 5

In sum, Petitioner’s claims are unfounded and conclusory and present no basis for which to

grant habeas relief. Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases explicitly allows the district

court to dismiss summarily a habeas petition when no claim for relief is stated. See O’Bremski v.

Maass, 915 F.2d 418, 420 (9 Cir.1990.) th

RECOMMENDATION

Accordingly, the Court RECOMMENDS that the petition for writ of habeas corpus be

DISMISSED with prejudice. 

This Findings and Recommendation is submitted to the Honorable Lawrence J. O’Neill,

United States District Court Judge, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Rule

72-304 of the Local Rules of Practice for the United States District Court, Eastern District of

California. Within thirty (30) days after being served with a copy, any party may file written

objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned

“Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendation.” Replies to the objections shall

be served and filed within ten (10) court days (plus three days if served by mail) after service of the

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

636(b)(1)(C). The parties are advised that 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: March 16, 2007 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder 

icido3 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:07-cv-00277-LJO -SMS Document 9 Filed 03/16/07 Page 5 of 5