Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-01556/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-01556-3/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Dennis Ray Hanson
Petitioner
Sue Hubber
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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DENNIS RAY HANSON, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

vs. )

)

)

SUE HUBBER, )

)

Respondent. )

)

)

___________________________________ )

1:07-CV-1556-AWI WMW HC

FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATIONS RE 

DISMISSING PETITION FOR

WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS 

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

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 2254. The court has conducted its initial review of the petition

and has concluded that it must be dismissed for failure to exhaust state judicial remedies.

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,

Case 1:07-cv-01556-AWI-WMW Document 11 Filed 12/26/07 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 2

455 U.S. 509, 518, 102 S.Ct. 1198, 1203 (1982); Buffalo v. Sunn, 854 F.2d 1158, 1163 (9th

Cir. 1988). 

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 th

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, 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 th

claim that the trial court 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. A general appeal to a

constitutional guarantee is insufficient to present the "substance" of such a federal claim to a

state court. See, Anderson v. Harless, 459 U.S. 4, 7, 103 S.Ct. 276 (1982) (Exhaustion

requirement not satisfied circumstance that the "due process ramifications" of an argument

might be "self-evident."); Gray v. Netherland, 518 U.S. 152, 162-63, 116 S.Ct. 1074 (1996)

(“a claim for relief in habeas corpus must include reference to a specific federal constitutional

guarantee, as well as a statement of the facts which entitle the petitioner to relief.”).

In this case, the only reference Petitioner makes in his petition is to presenting his

claim to the California Superior Court. Petitioner makes no reference to presenting his

claims to either the California Court of Appeal or the California Supreme Court. It appears,

therefore, that the claims raised in this petition are unexhausted.

In 1996, Congress enacted the Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act.

Pub.L. No 104-132, 110 Stat. 1214. Under the AEDPA, exhaustion can be waived by

Case 1:07-cv-01556-AWI-WMW Document 11 Filed 12/26/07 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 3

Respondent. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(C). The Court can also excuse exhaustion if “(I) there is an

absence of available State corrective process; or (ii) circumstances exist that render such a

process ineffective to protect the rights of the applicant.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(1)(B). In this

case, Respondent has not waived exhaustion. In addition, California provides avenues for

Petitioner to pursue state claims. For example, these claims could have been presented in a

Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus. See, Cal. Penal Code §§ 1473 - 1475. Finally, there are

not sufficient circumstances in this case for the Court to ignore the United States Supreme

Court’s admonishment that comity demands exhaustion and find that California’s corrective

processes are ineffective to protect Petitioner’s rights.

In light of the above, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED as follows:

1) That this petition be DISMISSED for failure to exhaust state judicial remedies;

2) That the Clerk of the Court be directed to enter judgment for Respondent and to close

this case.

These Findings and Recommendation are submitted to the assigned United States

District Court Judge, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. section 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: December 26, 2007 /s/ William M. Wunderlich 

bl0dc4 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:07-cv-01556-AWI-WMW Document 11 Filed 12/26/07 Page 3 of 3