Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-02489/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-02489-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Scott Kernan
Respondent
George Nimer Martha
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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GEORGE NIMER MARTHA,

Petitioner,

v.

SCOTT KERNAN, warden,

Respondent.

 /

No. C 04-2489 SI (pr)

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

George Nimer Martha, a California prisoner, filed this action for a writ of habeas corpus

under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Respondent has filed a motion to dismiss the petition as unexhausted and

Martha has opposed the motion. The court concludes that the petition is unexhausted and

therefore must be dismissed.

Prisoners in state custody who wish to challenge collaterally in federal habeas proceedings

either the fact or length of their confinement first exhaust state judicial remedies, either on direct

appeal or through collateral proceedings, by presenting the highest state court available with a fair

opportunity to rule on the merits of each and every claim they seek to raise in federal court. See

28 U.S.C. § 2254(b),(c); Rose v. Lundy, 455 U.S. 509, 515-16 (1982); Duckworth v. Serrano, 454

U.S. 1, 3 (1981). The exhaustion-of-state-remedies doctrine reflects a policy of federal-state

comity to give the state "'the initial "opportunity to pass upon and correct" alleged violations of its

prisoners' federal rights.'" Picard v. Connor, 404 U.S. 270, 275 (1971) (citations omitted). A

federal district court must dismiss a habeas petition containing claims as to which state remedies

have not been exhausted. See Rose v. Lundy, 455 U.S. at 522.

Case 3:04-cv-02489-SI Document 60 Filed 06/21/05 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

Martha filed a petition for review in the California Supreme Court after his conviction was

affirmed by the California Court of Appeal but the petition did not contain any of the claims he

now raises in his federal petition. His petition for review (filed in pro per) consisted of three

pages (i.e., a cover sheet, one page of text, and a proof of service page), did not identify a single

claim for relief, stated that "Petitioner respectfully is requesting a Petition for Review" and

identified the California Court of Appeal case number. See Resp. Exh. 2. That petition did not

fairly present any claim to the California Supreme Court. The petition for review did not satisfy

the exhaustion requirement because it did not alert the California Supreme Court to the fact that

Martha asserted claims under the U.S. Constitution. See Duncan v. Henry, 513 U.S. 364, 365-66

(1995); see also Baldwin v. Reese, 541 U.S. 27, 30-32 (2004) (where state petitioner did not

claim specifically in brief presented to state supreme court that appellate counsel's performance

violated federal law, claim was not fairly presented even though that court had the opportunity to

read lower court opinions which could have shown the claim was cast in federal terms). 

California does have a procedure for filing abbreviated petitions for review to satisfy the

exhaustion requirement, see Cal. Rule of Court 33.3, but Martha's petition for review cannot be

construed as such a petition. Specifically, contrary to the rule's requirements, Martha's petition

(1) was not labeled as a "Petition For Review to Exhaust State Remedies," (2) did not include the

necessary statement that the case presented no ground for review under rule 28(b) and was filed

solely to exhaust, (3) did not include the necessary "brief statement of the underlying proceedings,

including the nature of the conviction and the punishment imposed" and (4) did not include the

necessary "brief statement of the factual and legal bases of the claim." Cal. Rule Ct. 33.3(b). Even

when filed by an unrepresented litigant, a document that does not cite the rule and meets none of

the requirements of the rule cannot be construed to be filed under that rule. 

The arguments Martha makes in his opposition to the motion to dismiss are wholly

unpersuasive. The fact that the California Supreme Court denied review does not matter if the

federal claims were not presented to that court. The fact that the California Supreme Court denied

review "en banc" has no relevance either. The California Supreme Court's one-sentence denial of

Case 3:04-cv-02489-SI Document 60 Filed 06/21/05 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

Martha's petition simply does not address the critical issue here, i.e., determining what claims

were presented to the court. 

 The petition must be dismissed because it has no claims as to which state court remedies

have been exhausted. The action cannot be stayed while Martha exhausts his state court remedies

because the petition does not contain any exhausted claims. Martha is urged to act swiftly to

exhaust his state court remedies (by, e.g., presenting the claims in a petition for writ of habeas

corpus to the California Supreme Court) and immediately file a new federal habeas petition after

he receives a decision from that court. There is a critical one-year statute of limitations on the

filing of federal habeas petitions, see 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d), that may bar some or all of Martha's

claims when he returns to federal court, especially if he does not do so swiftly.

Respondent's motion to dismiss is GRANTED. (Docket # 56.) The action is dismissed

because Martha did not exhaust state court remedies before filing his federal petition for writ of

habeas corpus. The clerk shall close the file. Because this action is now closed, when Martha

files his new federal habeas petition, he should not use the case number for this action and instead

should file the petition as a new action, i.e., he should send the petition to the court without a case

number and the court will assign it a new case number when the petition is filed.

In light of the dismissal of this action, petitioner's "addendum motion, motion for default

judgment, and request to be placed in federal custody are DENIED as moot. (Docket # 47, # 57,

and # 59.) If Martha wants to complain about the conditions of confinement at Mule Creeks State

Prison, he must do so in a civil rights complaint filed in the Eastern District of California.

 IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: June _20__, 2005 S/Susan Illston 

 

 SUSAN ILLSTON

United States District Judge

Case 3:04-cv-02489-SI Document 60 Filed 06/21/05 Page 3 of 3