1Alvarado filed his initial petition (document no. 1) on

September 5, 2006. Since that time, he has filed numerous

addenda to the petition (document nos. 3-7 & 11-24). I will

consider all of these documents, in the aggregate, to be the

petition in this matter.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Sebastian Alvarado

v. Civil No. 06-cv-335-PB

State of New Hampshire

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Sebastian Alvarado has filed a petition for a writ of habeas

corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (document nos. 1, 3-7 & 11-

24)1. The matter is before me for preliminary review. See Rule

4 of the Rules Governing § 2254 Cases in the United States

District Courts (requiring initial review to determine whether

the petition is facially valid); United States District Court for

the District of New Hampshire Local Rule (“LR”) 4.3(d)(2)

(authorizing Magistrate Judge to preliminarily review pro se

actions to determine whether or not the plaintiff has stated any

claim upon which relief might be granted). As discussed herein,

Case 1:06-cv-00335-PB Document 25 Filed 10/31/2006 Page 1 of 7

Alvarado v. State of New Hampshire Doc. 25

Dockets.Justia.com
2

I find that the petition is not facially valid as it does not

demonstrate exhaustion of the claims raised therein. 

Standard of Review

Under this Court’s local rules, when an incarcerated

plaintiff commences an action pro se and in forma pauperis, the

magistrate judge is directed to conduct a preliminary review and

to prepare a report and recommendation determining whether the

complaint or any portion thereof should be dismissed because:

(i) the allegation of poverty is untrue, the 

action is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state 

a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seeks 

monetary relief from a defendant who is immune 

from such relief under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b); or

(ii) it fails to establish subject matter 

jurisdiction under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1).

LR 4.3(d)(2). In conducting the preliminary review, the Court

construes pro se pleadings liberally. See Ayala Serrano v.

Lebron Gonzales, 909 F.2d 8, 15 (1st Cir. 1990) (following

Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106 (1976) to construe pro se

pleadings liberally in favor of the pro se party). “The policy

behind affording pro se plaintiffs liberal interpretation is that

if they present sufficient facts, the court may intuit the

correct cause of action, even if it was imperfectly pled.” Ahmed 

Case 1:06-cv-00335-PB Document 25 Filed 10/31/2006 Page 2 of 7
3

v. Rosenblatt, 118 F.3d 886, 890 (1st Cir. 1997), cert. denied,

Ahmed v. Greenwood, 522 U.S. 1148 (1998).

At this preliminary stage of review, all factual assertions

made by the petitioner and inferences reasonably drawn therefrom

must be accepted as true. See Aulson v. Blanchard, 83 F.3d 1, 3

(1st Cir. 1996) (stating the “failure to state a claim” standard

of review and explaining that all “well-pleaded factual

averments,” not bald assertions, must be accepted as true). This

review ensures that pro se pleadings are given fair and

meaningful consideration. See Eveland v. Dir. of C.I.A., 843

F.2d 46, 49 (1st Cir. 1988).

Background

In 1998, Alvarado stood accused of four felony charges in

the New Hampshire Superior Court sitting in the Southern District

of Hillsborough County. In February 1999, the Superior Court

judge found that Alvarado was not competent to stand trial and

released Alvarado on house arrest. Alvarado alleges that the

judge later dismissed all of the charges against him. Alvarado

claims that he was later reindicted on the same charges. 

Alvarado alleges that on December 8, 2000, he plead guilty to the 

Case 1:06-cv-00335-PB Document 25 Filed 10/31/2006 Page 3 of 7
2The claims as identified herein will be considered for all

purposes to be the claims raised in the petition. If Alvarado

objects to this identification of claims, he must do so by

properly moving to amend his petition or by filing a proper

objection to this Report and Recommendation.

3Alvarado first alleges that he was reindicted after the

charges were dismissed pursuant to the Superior Court’s finding

that he was not competent to stand trial. Later, Alvarado states

that the Superior Court judge found him not guilty by reason of

insanity. Although those scenarios present very different

questions in terms of evaluating the substance of a double

jeopardy claim, the distinction is not relevant to my

recommendation here, as I find that the entire petition should be

dismissed for a failure to exhaust any of the claims discussed

therein.

4

reinstated charges. Alvarado now alleges that his guilty plea

was not knowingly and voluntarily entered. 

Alvarado’s petition is a disjointed series of written

documents that, liberally construed, could be read to attempt the

following claims2 that his incarceration and sentence were not

legally entered:

- Alvarado’s second prosecution on the offenses in 

question violated his Fifth Amendment right not to 

twice be prosecuted for the same offense;3

- Alvarado’s guilty plea was not knowingly, 

intelligently, and voluntarily made as petitioner was 

not competent to enter a guilty plea, and violated his 

Fourteenth Amendment due process rights;

- Alvarado did not receive the effective assistance of 

counsel as guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment.

Case 1:06-cv-00335-PB Document 25 Filed 10/31/2006 Page 4 of 7
4In his pleadings, Alvarado has made a number of other

requests. Specifically, Alvarado has sought assistance in

obtaining witnesses, records, and transcripts in order to proceed

with his claims before this Court. Because I recommend that this

petition be denied as unexhausted, I deny these requests as moot.

5

Alvarado does not indicate that he ever took steps to

challenge his conviction and sentence in the state courts. 

Instead, Alvarado asks this Court to review the conduct of the

trial court in his case in the period from 1998-2000 and,

pursuant to that review, find that his present conviction and

sentence are illegal.4 

Discussion

Under § 2254, federal courts are authorized to “entertain an

application for a writ of habeas corpus in behalf of a person in

custody pursuant to a judgment of a state court only on the

ground that he is in custody in violation of the Constitution or

laws or treaties of the United States.” To be eligible for

habeas relief, Alvarado must show that he is both in custody and

has exhausted all state court remedies or that he is excused from

exhausting those remedies because of an absence of available or

effective state corrective process. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a) &

(b); see also Braden v. 30th Jud. Cir. Ct. of Ky., 410 U.S. 484,

489-92 (1973); Benson v. Super. Ct. Dep’t of Trial Ct. of Mass.,

Case 1:06-cv-00335-PB Document 25 Filed 10/31/2006 Page 5 of 7
6

663 F.2d 355, 358-59 (1st Cir. 1981). Alvarado satisfies the

first eligibility requirement as he is currently in custody,

ostensibly pursuant to the sentence in question. However, at

this time, Alvarado has demonstrated neither that he has

exhausted his state remedies, nor that effective state remedies

are unavailable to him.

A petitioner’s remedies in New Hampshire are exhausted when

the State’s highest court has had an opportunity to rule on the

petitioner’s federal constitutional claims. See Lanigan v.

Maloney, 853 F.2d 40, 42 (1st Cir. 1988), cert. denied, Maloney

v. Lanigan, 488 U.S. 1007 (1989) (“habeas corpus petitioner must

have presented the substance of his federal constitutional claim

to the state appellate courts so that the state had the first

chance to correct the claimed constitutional error”); see also

Picard v. Connor, 404 U.S. 270, 275 (1971) (requiring petitioner

to have fairly presented the federal nature of his claims to the

state courts to give them the first opportunity to remedy the

claimed constitutional error). Alvarado’s assertions make it

clear that he has not presented his federal due process, double

jeopardy, or ineffective assistance of counsel claims to the New 

Case 1:06-cv-00335-PB Document 25 Filed 10/31/2006 Page 6 of 7
7

Hampshire Supreme Court for consideration and thus has not given

that Court the opportunity to rule on the issue. 

Conclusion

I find that Alvarado has failed to exhaust his state

remedies. Accordingly, I recommend his petition be dismissed

without prejudice to filing a petition for a writ of habeas

corpus regarding these issues in the state trial and appellate

courts.

Any objections to this Report and Recommendation must be

filed within ten (10) days of receipt of this notice. Failure to

file objections within the specified time waives the right to

appeal the district court’s order. See Unauth. Practice of

Law Comm. v. Gordon, 979 F.2d 11, 13-14 (1st Cir. 1992); United

States v. Valencia-Copete, 792 F.2d 4, 6 (1st Cir. 1986).

_________________________________

James R. Muirhead

United States Magistrate Judge

Date: October 31, 2006

cc: Sebastian Alvarado, pro se

Case 1:06-cv-00335-PB Document 25 Filed 10/31/2006 Page 7 of 7