Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-01865/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-01865-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Eugene Harold Campbell
Petitioner
Kathy Mendoza-Powers
Respondent

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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

EUGENE HAROLD CAMPBELL,

Petitioner,

v.

KATHY MENDOZA-POWERS, Warden,

Respondent.

 /

CV F 06-1865 AWI SMS HC

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY PETITION

SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED FOR LACK

OF JURISDICTION

[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. 

On November 27, 2006, Petitioner filed the instant petition for writ of habeas corpus in

the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. On December 22, 2006,

the petition was transferred to this Court. (Court Doc. 1.)

In his petition, Petitioner challenges the Board of Prison Terms denial of parole. 

In reviewing the petition it is not clear what, if any, claims were exhausted in the

California Supreme Court. 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 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, 111 S.Ct. 2546, 2554-55 (1991); Rose

v. Lundy, 455 U.S. 509, 518, 102 S.Ct. 1198, 1203 (1982); Buffalo v. Sunn, 854 F.2d 1158, 1163

Case 1:06-cv-01865-AWI -SMS Document 5 Filed 02/07/07 Page 1 of 2
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

A copy of the California Supreme Court’s denial alone is insufficient to demonstrate exhaustion. The 1

proper documentation to provide would be a copy of the Petition filed in the California Supreme Court that includes

the claim now presented and a file stamp showing that it was indeed filed in that Court. 

2

(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. 

Picard v. Connor, 404 U.S. 270, 276, 92 S.Ct. 509, 512 (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 and fair th

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, 115 S.Ct. 887, 888 (1995) (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, 115 S.Ct. at 888; Keating v. Hood, 133

F.3d 1240, 1241 (9 Cir.1998). For example, if a petitioner wishes to claim that the trial court

th

violated his due process rights “he must say so, not only in federal court but in state court.”

Duncan, 513 U.S. at 366, 115 S.Ct. at 888.

Because it is unclear what, if any, claims presented in the instant federal petition for writ

of habeas corpus were exhausted in the state’s highest court, Petitioner will be ordered to show

cause regarding exhaustion. If possible, Petitioner should present to the Court documentary

evidence that the claims were indeed presented to the California Supreme Court.

1

Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Within thirty (30) days from the date of service of this order, Petitioner shall show

cause as to what claims, if any, were presented to the state’s highest court.

2. Failure to comply with this order may result in the action be dismissed for failure

to comply with a court order. Local Rule 11-110. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 6, 2007 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder 

icido3 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-01865-AWI -SMS Document 5 Filed 02/07/07 Page 2 of 2