Relmon Henry Davis III v. C S McEwen
Filing
7
ORDER SUMMARILY DISMISSING PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS WITHOUT PREJUDICE by Judge David O. Carter: IT IS ORDERED THAT this action be SUMMARILY DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE pursuant to Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts. LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY. (jm)
<![CDATA[
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
RELMON HENRY DAVIS III,
Petitioner,
12
v.
13
14
L.S. MCEWEN, Warden,
Respondent.
15
16
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No. SA CV 11-1350 DOC (JCG)
ORDER SUMMARILY DISMISSING
PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS
CORPUS WITHOUT PREJUDICE
17
18
I.
19
INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY
20
On September 6, 2011, petitioner Relmon Henry Davis III (“Petitioner”), a
21
California prisoner proceeding pro se, filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus
22
(“Petition”) challenging his 2008 state court conviction. (Pet. at 2.)1 However,
23
because Petitioner currently has a pending state habeas petition, which could result in
24
the reversal of Petitioner’s conviction or otherwise moot the federal question, the
25
Petition must be dismissed without prejudice.
26
///
27
28
1
The Court sequentially numbers the pages of the Petition, i.e., pages 1-86.
1
II.
2
STATE PROCEEDINGS
On October 29, 2008, Petitioner was convicted for assault with a deadly weapon
3
4
and forcible oral copulation. (Pet. at 2); see also People v. Davis, 2009 WL 4981277,
5
at *1 (Cal. App. Dec. 23, 2009). On December 23, 2009, the California Court of
6
Appeal affirmed the conviction. (Id. at 2-3.) Petitioner then filed a Petition for
7
Review in the California Supreme Court, which was denied on March 10, 2010. (Id. at
8
3.)
9
Petitioner also filed several habeas petitions in the California courts, including
10
two petitions in the California Supreme Court. (Pet. at 3-6, 85-86.) One of those
11
petitions was filed on July 27, 2011, and remains pending. (Id. at 85-86.) The Court
12
further takes judicial notice of information on the California Supreme Court’s website,
13
which indicates that one of Petitioner’s habeas petitions to the California Supreme
14
Court is still pending. See www.courts.ca.gov/supremecourt.htm, Case Information,
15
Case No. S195179.
16
III.
17
DISCUSSION
18
Before a state prisoner challenges his state conviction in federal court via a
19
federal habeas petition, he must first exhaust his federal grounds for relief in state
20
court. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b); see also Duncan v. Henry, 513 U.S. 364, 365 (1995) (per
21
curiam). To satisfy the exhaustion requirement, a petitioner must “fairly present” his
22
federal claims to the state courts, “to give the State the opportunity to pass upon and
23
correct alleged violations of its prisoners’ federal rights.” Duncan, 513 U.S. at 365
24
(internal quotation marks and citation omitted). “To provide the State with the
25
necessary ‘opportunity,’ the prisoner must ‘fairly present’ his claim in each appropriate
26
state court (including a state supreme court with powers of discretionary review),
27
thereby alerting that court to the federal nature of the claim.” Baldwin v. Reese, 541
28
U.S. 27, 29 (2004) (citation omitted).
2
1
Accordingly, when a federal habeas claim is still pending before a state court, a
2
federal habeas petitioner has not met the exhaustion requirement because he has not
3
given the state court the first opportunity to address the federal claim. See Duncan,
4
513 U.S. at 365. Furthermore, “[i]f the prisoner’s claim is meritorious, and if the state
5
remedy is prompt and complete, there is no need to bring post-conviction proceedings
6
in federal courts.” Sherwood v. Tomkins, 716 F.2d 632, 633 (9th Cir. 1983) (internal
7
quotation marks and citation omitted).
8
Thus, “[w]hen ... an appeal of a state criminal conviction is pending, a
9
would-be habeas corpus petitioner must await the outcome of his appeal before his
10
state remedies are exhausted, even where the issue to be challenged ... has been finally
11
settled in the state courts.” Sherwood, 716 F.2d at 634; see also Schnepp v. Oregon,
12
333 F.2d 288, 288 (9th Cir. 1964) (state remedies not exhausted where a state post-
13
conviction proceeding is pending). As the Ninth Circuit cogently explained, “even if
14
the federal constitutional question raised by the habeas corpus petitioner cannot be
15
resolved in a pending state appeal, that appeal may result in the reversal of the
16
petitioner’s conviction on some other ground, thereby mooting the federal question.”
17
Sherwood, 716 F.2d at 634 (emphasis added) (citing Davidson v. Klinger, 411 F.2d
18
746, 747 (9th Cir. 1969)).
19
Here, Petitioner acknowledges that he is currently awaiting adjudication on his
20
habeas petition to the California Supreme Court. (Pet. at 85-86.) Since Petitioner
21
retains a pending state action which may moot or otherwise affect his alleged
22
constitutional claims before this Court, he must await the outcome of that action before
23
presenting his claims in federal court. The California Supreme Court must be afforded
24
the opportunity to remedy any alleged constitutional violations in the first instance.
25
Sherwood, 716 F.2d at 634.
26
Petitioner is advised that this dismissal is without prejudice. If Petitioner still
27
desires federal habeas relief following the California Supreme Court’s adjudication of
28
his state habeas petition, he may file a habeas petition with this Court. Petitioner is
3
1
further advised that there is a one-year statute of limitations on habeas claims by a
2
petitioner in state custody, which ordinarily begins to run at the end of the period in
3
which that petitioner can seek direct review. 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1); see also Bowen
4
v. Roe, 188 F.3d 1157, 1159 (9th Cir. 1999) (for purposes of determining when
5
judgment is final under § 2244(d)(1), period of direct review includes “the ninety-day
6
period within which [the petitioner] could have filed a petition for a writ of certiorari
7
from the United States Supreme Court”). The limitations period is tolled while a
8
“properly filed” application for state post-conviction or other collateral review with
9
respect to the pertinent judgment or claim is pending, 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(2), but the
10
limitations period is not tolled under section 2244(d) while a petition is pending in
11
federal court. Duncan v. Walker, 533 U.S. 167, 181-82 (2001).
12
IV.
13
CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY
For the reasons stated above, the Court finds that Petitioner has not shown that
14
15
“jurists of reason would find it debatable whether”: (1) “the petition states a valid
16
claim of the denial of a constitutional right”; and (2) “the district court was correct in
17
its procedural ruling.” See Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). Thus, the
18
Court declines to issue a certificate of appealability.
19
///
20
///
21
///
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4
1
V.
2
ORDER
3
For the foregoing reasons, IT IS ORDERED THAT this action be
4
SUMMARILY DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE pursuant to Rule 4 of the
5
Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts.
6
LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY.
7
8
9
DATED: _09/27/11
10
________________________________________
11
HON. DAVID O. CARTER
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
5
]]>
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?
