Opinion
Case No. CV 18-09167 AB (RAO)
03-04-2019
JUAN MEDINA, Petitioner, v. SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, Respondent.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER RE SUMMARY DISMISSAL OF PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS AND DENIAL OF CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY
I. BACKGROUND
On October 19, 2018, Petitioner Juan Medina ("Petitioner") filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 ("Petition"). Pet., Dkt. No. 1.
The Petition states that Petitioner was convicted of his underlying criminal offense either in 2009 or 2012, after entering a plea of nolo contendere pursuant to a plea deal. Pet. at 2, 3. Petitioner did not appeal his conviction, nor has he filed any state habeas petitions in the California Supreme Court prior to initiating the instant habeas action. Id. at 3-5.
The Court issued a screening order on November 21, 2018, directing Petitioner to submit a response explaining his exhaustion of state remedies and to explain why the Petition is not time barred. Dkt. No. 6. On December 13, 2018, Petitioner filed a statement responding to the Court's order ("Response"), but the Response does not address exhaustion of state remedies. See Dkt. No. 7.
II. LEGAL STANDARD
Under Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts, the Court may dismiss a petition "[i]f it plainly appears from the petition and any attached exhibits that the petitioner is not entitled to relief in the district court." The "Ninth Circuit has held that a federal court may raise the failure to exhaust issue sua sponte and may summarily dismiss on that ground." White v. Paramo, Case No. CV 16-03531-ODW (KES), 2016 WL 3034669, at *2 (C.D. Cal. May 27, 2016) (citing Granberry v. Greer, 481 U.S. 129, 134-35, 107 S. Ct. 1671, 95 L. Ed. 2d 119 (1987); Stone v. San Francisco, 968 F.2d 850, 856 (9th Cir. 1992); Cartwright v. Cupp, 650 F.2d 1103, 1104 (9th Cir. 1982) (per curiam)) (dismissing petition for failure to exhaust state remedies).
III. DISCUSSION
A state prisoner must exhaust his state court remedies before a federal court may consider granting habeas corpus relief. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(1)(A); O'Sullivan v. Boerckel, 526 U.S. 838, 842, 119 S. Ct. 1728, 144 L. Ed. 2d. 1 (1999). To satisfy the exhaustion requirement, a habeas petitioner must fairly present his federal claims in the state courts in order to give the State the opportunity to pass upon and correct alleged violations of the prisoner's federal rights. Duncan v. Henry, 513 U.S. 364, 365, 115 S. Ct. 887, 130 L. Ed. 2d 865 (1995) (per curiam). A habeas petitioner must give the state courts "one full opportunity" to decide a federal claim by carrying out "one complete round" of the state's appellate process in order to properly exhaust a claim. O'Sullivan, 526 U.S. at 845. He must present his claims to the highest state court with jurisdiction to consider it or demonstrate that no state remedy remains available. Peterson v. Lampert, 319 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc).
Here, Petitioner acknowledges in the Petition that he has not exhausted his state remedies. Further, the Response fails to address the issue of exhaustion as directed to do so by the Court. Finally, a check of the public records of the California Supreme Court does not reflect the filing of any habeas petitions by Petitioner. Although the exhaustion requirement may be excused under limited circumstances, see 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(1)(B)(i)-(ii), none of these circumstances appear to exist here. Petitioner has failed to exhaust his claims in state court, and summary dismissal of this action is appropriate.
Dismissal of the Petition is without prejudice to Petitioner's later pursuing habeas relief in federal court upon exhausting available remedies in the state courts. Petitioner is warned, however, that under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1), "[a] 1-year period of limitations shall apply to an application for a writ of habeas corpus by a person in custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court."
IV. CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY
Under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, a state prisoner seeking to appeal a district court's final order in a habeas corpus proceeding must obtain a Certificate of Appealability ("COA") from the district judge or a circuit judge. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A). A COA may issue "only if the applicant has made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right." 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). "A petitioner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that jurists of reason could disagree with the district court's resolution of his constitutional claims or that jurists could conclude the issues presented are adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further." Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 327, 123 S. Ct. 1029, 154 L. Ed. 2d 931 (2003).
When the Court dismisses a petition on procedural grounds, it must issue a COA if the petitioner shows: (1) "that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the petition states a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional right"; and (2) "that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the district court was correct in its procedural ruling." Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 478, 120 S. Ct. 1595, 146 L. Ed. 2d 542 (2000).
Here, the Court is summarily dismissing the instant Petition without prejudice because the Court has determined that Petitioner has failed to exhaust his habeas claims in state court. The Court finds that Petitioner cannot make the requisite showing that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the district court was correct in its procedural ruling.
V. ORDER
Based on the foregoing, IT IS ORDERED THAT:
1. The Petition is DISMISSED without prejudice; and
2. A Certificate of Appealability is DENIED. DATED: 3/4/2019
/s/_________
ANDRÉ BIROTTE JR.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Presented by: /s/_________
ROZELLA A. OLIVER
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE