Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-01097/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-01097-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
State of California
Respondent
Bryan J. Strother
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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

BRYAN J. STROTHER,

Petitioner, No. CIV S-05-1097 GEB GGH P

vs.

STATE OF CALIFORNIA, 

Respondent. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

 /

Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding through counsel with a petition for writ of

habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Petitioner challenges his 2003 conviction for

unlawful eavesdropping in violation of Cal. Penal Code § 632(a). Pending before the court is

respondent’s July 18, 2005, motion to dismiss for failure to exhaust state court remedies. 

Petitioner has requested oral argument regarding this motion. The court finds that oral argument

is not warranted. After carefully reviewing the record, the court recommends that respondent’s

motion be granted.

/////

/////

/////

/////

Case 2:05-cv-01097-GEB-GGH Document 12 Filed 11/03/05 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 1

 Petitioner did not file a habeas corpus petition in the California Supreme Court.

2

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 respondent’s counsel. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(3). 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, 92 S. Ct. 509, 512

(1971); Middleton v. Cupp, 768 F.2d 1083, 1086 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 478 U.S. 1021 (1986). 

The petition raises two claims. The first claim clearly states a claim for jury

instruction error in violation of petitioner’s right to due process based on the trial court’s failure

to instruct on the necessity defense. The second claim is described as follows:

Petitioner’s right to due process, to raise a defense, and a fair trial were violated 

by the court’s error. By failing to instruct on the necessity defense and vacating 

his position as a neutral and detached magistrate the trial judge violated 

petitioner’s 14th Amendment due process rights under the federal constitution. 

Petition, p. 19.

This claim appears to be based on the legal theory of judicial bias. 

Respondent argues that only claim one is exhausted.1 Petitioner’s petition for

review filed in the California Supreme Court raised one claim: the trial court’s failure to instruct

on the necessity defense violated petitioner’s right to due process. See Petition for Review,

lodged July 19, 2005. The section of the petition for review discussing petitioner’s federal claim

did not mention judicial bias. Id., pp. 14-16. 

In his opposition to respondent’s motion, petitioner argues that he exhausted his

judicial bias claim because the underlying theme of both of his claims was self-evident in his

petition for review, i.e., the trial court’s failure to read the necessity defense instruction. 

/////

Case 2:05-cv-01097-GEB-GGH Document 12 Filed 11/03/05 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

3

Because the exhaustion doctrine is founded on principles of comity, a state

prisoner must give the state courts a “fair opportunity to act” on each of his claims before he

presents those claims in a federal habeas petition. O’Sullivan v. Boerckel, 526 U.S. 838, 119 S.

Ct. 1728 (1999). Accordingly, “[t]he state prisoner must describe in the state proceedings both

the operative facts and the federal legal theory on which his claim is based so that the state courts

have a fair opportunity to apply controlling legal principles to the facts bearing upon the

constitutional claim.” Kelly v. Small, 315 F.3d 1063, 1066 (9th Cir. 2003).

Because the petition for review did not identify judicial bias as a legal theory on

which petitioner challenged the validity of his conviction, this claim is not exhausted. The court

recommends that respondent’s motion to dismiss be granted and that this action be dismissed. 

Rose v. Lundy, 455 U.S. 509, 518-522, 102 S. Ct. 1198 (1982) (a petition raising both exhausted

and unexhausted claims must be dismissed for failure to completely exhaust available state

remedies).

In his opposition to respondent’s motion, petitioner states that if the court finds

his claim to be unexhausted, he wishes to proceed on his remaining exhausted claim. The court

will recommend that respondent’s motion to dismiss be granted. While the findings and

recommendations are pending, petitioner may file a request to voluntarily dismiss his

unexhausted claim. The court will then withdraw the findings and recommendations. Otherwise,

if the district court adopts these findings and recommendations the entire action will be

dismissed.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that respondent’s July 18, 2005,

motion to dismiss be granted and this action be dismissed.

These findings and recommendations will be submitted to the United States

District Judge assigned to this case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within

twenty days after being served with these findings and recommendations, petitioner may file

written objections with the court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Findings

Case 2:05-cv-01097-GEB-GGH Document 12 Filed 11/03/05 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

and Recommendations.” Petitioner is 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).

DATED: 11/2/05

/s/ Gregory G. Hollows

 

GREGORY G. HOLLOWS

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

ggh:kj

str1097.mtd

Case 2:05-cv-01097-GEB-GGH Document 12 Filed 11/03/05 Page 4 of 4