Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00839/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00839-2/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Timothy Jerry Ferris
Petitioner
Jeanne Woodford
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 This information is derived from the petition for writ of habeas corpus and Respondent’s motion to dismiss.

1

U.S. District Court

 E. D. California cd 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

TIMOTHY JERRY FERRIS, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

v. )

)

)

JEANNE WOODFORD, )

)

Respondent. )

 )

1:06-CV-00839 AWI SMS HC

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION 

REGARDING RESPONDENT’S MOTION

TO DISMISS 

[Doc. #8]

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

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 

BACKGROUND1

Petitioner is currently in the custody of the California Department of Corrections pursuant to

a judgment of the Superior Court of California, County of Fresno, following his conviction by jury

trial on April 12, 2004, of kidnaping, assault with a deadly weapon, attempted criminal threats, and

infliction of corporal injury on a spouse. It was also found that Petitioner had personally used a knife

during the commission of the offenses. Petitioner was sentenced to serve a total determinate prison

Case 1:06-cv-00839-LJO -JMD Document 10 Filed 12/08/06 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

term of nine years.

Petitioner thereafter appealed the conviction. On July 27, 2005, the California Court of

Appeal, Fifth Appellate District (hereinafter “5 DCA”) affirmed the conviction. th

On August 4, 2005, Petitioner filed a petition for review with the California Supreme Court. 

Review was summarily denied by the California Supreme Court on September 28, 2005.

Petitioner then filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus in the California Supreme Court on

June 28, 2006. The petition is still pending.

On June 30, 2006, Petitioner filed the instant petition for writ of habeas corpus in this Court. 

Petitioner raises the following four grounds for relief: (1) “Weather [sic] the prosecution must prove,

at jury trial that a criminal defendant was san[e] at the time of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt

under the 6 and 14 amendments to the United States Constitution, where the defendant has

th

presented substantial evidence that he is legal insane at the time of the offense”; 2) “Does the

California determinate sentencing law, as applied by trial court, and upheld by the court of appeal

and the Supreme Court of California violate the defendants sixth amendment right to a jury trial

under the United States Constitution by allowing the judge, rather than a jury, to find factors used to

support imposition of the upper upper [sic] term of imprisonment”; 3) “Ineffective of appeals

council”; and 4) “Jury misconduct.” 

On November 7, 2006, Respondent filed a motion to dismiss the petition as a mixed petition

containing exhausted and unexhausted claims.

On December 4, 2006, Petitioner filed a motion to stay the proceedings.

DISCUSSION

A. Procedural Grounds for Motion to Dismiss

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 5 of the Rules

Governing § 2254 Cases state that “an alleged failure to exhaust state remedies may be raised by the

attorney general, thus avoiding the necessity of a formal answer as to that ground.” The Ninth

Circuit has referred to a respondent’s motion to dismiss on the ground that the petitioner failed to

Case 1:06-cv-00839-LJO -JMD Document 10 Filed 12/08/06 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

exhaust state remedies as a request for the Court to dismiss under Rule 4 of the Rules Governing

§ 2254 Cases. See, e.g., O’Bremski v. Maass, 915 F.2d 418, 420 (1991); White v. Lewis, 874 F.2d

599, 602-03 (9 Cir. 1989); Hillery v. Pulley, 533 F.Supp. 1189, 1194 & n.12 (E.D. Cal. 1982). th

Based on the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases and case law, the Court will review Respondent’s

motion for dismissal pursuant to its authority under Rule 4.

B. Exhaustion of State 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 (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 (9 Cir.1999); th

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

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 

Case 1:06-cv-00839-LJO -JMD Document 10 Filed 12/08/06 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

A dismissal for failure to exhaust is not a dismissal on the merits, and Petitioner will not be barred from returning

2

to federal court after Petitioner exhausts available state remedies by 28 U.S.C. § 2244 (b)’s prohibition on filing second

petitions. See In re Turner, 101 F.3d 1323 (9 Cir. 1996). However, the Supreme Court has held that: th

[I]n the habeas corpus context it would be appropriate for an order dismissing a mixed 

petition to instruct an applicant that upon his return to federal court he is to bring only 

exhausted claims. See Fed. Rules Civ. Proc. 41(a) and (b). Once the petitioner is made 

U.S. District Court

 E. D. California cd 4

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, 

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). 

In the instant petition before the Court, Petitioner raises four grounds for relief. Respondent

concedes that Grounds One and Two are exhausted; however, Respondent argues that Grounds

Three and Four have not been ruled on by the California Supreme Court and are therefore

unexhausted. Petitioner concedes the two grounds are unexhausted and requests a stay of the

proceedings.

The instant petition is a mixed petition containing exhausted and unexhausted claims. The

Court must dismiss a mixed petition without prejudice to give Petitioner an opportunity to exhaust

the claims if he can do so. See Rose, 455 U.S. at 521-22; Gordon, 107 F.3d at 760. However, the

mixed petition may be stayed if Petitioner can demonstrate good cause for his failure to exhaust his

claims first in the state court. Rhines v. Weber, 544 U.S. 269 (2005). In the instant case, Petitioner

has not made a showing of good cause. Therefore, the mixed petition should be dismissed. Rose, 2

Case 1:06-cv-00839-LJO -JMD Document 10 Filed 12/08/06 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

aware of the exhaustion requirement, no reason exists for him not to exhaust all potential 

claims before returning to federal court. The failure to comply with an order of the court 

is grounds for dismissal with prejudice. Fed. Rules Civ. Proc. 41(b).

Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 489 (2000). Therefore, Petitioner is forewarned that in the event he returns to federal court

and files a mixed petition of exhausted and unexhausted claims, the petition may be dismissed with prejudice.

U.S. District Court

 E. D. California cd 5

455 U.S. at 521-22. 

RECOMMENDATION

Accordingly, the Court RECOMMENDS that Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss the Petition

for Writ of Habeas Corpus be GRANTED, Petitioner’s Motion for Stay be DENIED, and the

Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus be DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. This Findings and

Recommendation is submitted to the United States District Court Judge assigned to the case 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 ten (10) court days (plus three days if served by mail) after being served with a copy

of this Findings and Recommendation, 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. Provided Petitioner

does not move to withdraw the unexhausted claims, the Finding and Recommendation will be

submitted to the District Court for review of 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 Order of the District Court. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9 Cir. th

1991).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 7, 2006 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder 

icido3 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-00839-LJO -JMD Document 10 Filed 12/08/06 Page 5 of 5