(HC) Montano v. Stanislaus County et al, No. 1:2006cv00044 - Document 9 (E.D. Cal. 2006)
Court Description: FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS recommending that the petition for writ of habeas corpus be DISMISSED without prejudice. Referred to Judge Wanger, Objections to F&R due by 3/1/2006., signed by Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 1/25/06. (Robles, S)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
(HC) Montano v. Stanislaus County et al Doc. 9 Case 1:06-cv-00044-OWW-LJO Document 9 Filed 01/26/2006 Page 1 of 4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 11 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 12 ANTONIO V. MONTANO, 13 Petitioner, 14 v. 15 16 STANISLAUS COUNTY, et al., 17 Respondents. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 1:06-CV-0044 OWW LJO HC FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION REGARDING PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS [Doc. #1] 18 19 20 Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 21 On December 8, 1994, Petitioner was convicted in the Stanislaus County Superior Court of 22 attempted murder. See Petition, p. 1. Petitioner was sentenced to serve an indeterminate term of life 23 plus three years in state prison with the possibility of parole. Id. 24 On December 30, 2005, Petitioner filed the instant federal petition for writ of habeas corpus 25 in the Sacramento Division of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California. 26 On January 13, 2006, the matter was transferred to the Fresno Division and received in this Court. 27 DISCUSSION 28 Rule 4 of the Rules Governing § 2254 Cases requires the Court to make a preliminary review U.S . District C ourt E. D . C alifor nia cd 1 Dockets.Justia.com Case 1:06-cv-00044-OWW-LJO Document 9 Filed 01/26/2006 Page 2 of 4 1 of each petition for writ of habeas corpus. The Court must dismiss a petition "[i]f it plainly appears 2 from the petition . . . that the petitioner is not entitled to relief." Rule 4 of the Rules Governing 3 2254 Cases; see also Hendricks v. Vasquez, 908 F.2d 490 (9th Cir.1990). The Advisory Committee 4 Notes to Rule 8 indicate that the court may dismiss a petition for writ of habeas corpus, either on its 5 own motion under Rule 4, pursuant to the respondent’s motion to dismiss, or after an answer to the 6 petition has been filed. See Herbst v. Cook, 260 F.3d 1039 (9th Cir.2001). 7 A petitioner who is in state custody and wishes to collaterally challenge his conviction by a 8 petition for writ of habeas corpus must exhaust state judicial remedies. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(1). The 9 exhaustion doctrine is based on comity to the state court and gives the state court the initial 10 opportunity to correct the state's alleged constitutional deprivations. Coleman v. Thompson, 501 11 U.S. 722, 731, 111 S.Ct. 2546, 2554-55 (1991); Rose v. Lundy, 455 U.S. 509, 518, 102 S.Ct. 1198, 12 1203 (1982); Buffalo v. Sunn, 854 F.2d 1158, 1163 (9th Cir. 1988). 13 A petitioner can satisfy the exhaustion requirement by providing the highest state court with a 14 full and fair opportunity to consider each claim before presenting it to the federal court. Picard v. 15 Connor, 404 U.S. 270, 276, 92 S.Ct. 509, 512 (1971); Johnson v. Zenon, 88 F.3d 828, 829 (9th Cir. 16 1996). A federal court will find that the highest state court was given a full and fair opportunity to 17 hear a claim if the petitioner has presented the highest state court with the claim's factual and legal 18 basis. Duncan v. Henry, 513 U.S. 364, 365 (1995) (legal basis); Kenney v. Tamayo-Reyes, 504 U.S. 19 1 (1992) (factual basis). 20 Additionally, the petitioner must have specifically told the state court that he was raising a 21 federal constitutional claim. Duncan, 513 U.S. at 365-66; Lyons v. Crawford, 232 F.3d 666, 669 22 (9th Cir.2000), amended, 247 F.3d 904 (2001); Hiivala v. Wood, 195 F.3d 1098, 1106 (9th Cir.1999); 23 Keating v. Hood, 133 F.3d 1240, 1241 (9th Cir.1998). In Duncan, the United States Supreme Court 24 reiterated the rule as follows: 25 In Picard v. Connor, 404 U.S. 270, 275 . . . (1971), we said that exhaustion of state remedies requires that petitioners "fairly presen[t]" federal claims to the state courts in order to give the State the "'opportunity to pass upon and correct alleged violations of the prisoners' federal rights" (some internal quotation marks omitted). If state courts are to be given the opportunity to correct alleged violations of prisoners' federal rights, they must surely be alerted to the fact that the prisoners are asserting claims under the United States Constitution. If a habeas petitioner 26 27 28 U.S . District C ourt E. D . C alifor nia cd 2 Case 1:06-cv-00044-OWW-LJO 1 Filed 01/26/2006 Page 3 of 4 wishes to claim that an evidentiary ruling at a state court trial denied him the due process of law guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment, he must say so, not only in federal court, but in state court. 2 3 Document 9 Duncan, 513 U.S. at 365-366. The Ninth Circuit examined the rule further, stating: 4 Our rule is that a state prisoner has not "fairly presented" (and thus exhausted) his federal claims in state court unless he specifically indicated to that court that those claims were based on federal law. See Shumway v. Payne, 223 F.3d 982, 987-88 (9th Cir. 2000). Since the Supreme Court's decision in Duncan, this court has held that the petitioner must make the federal basis of the claim explicit either by citing federal law or the decisions of federal courts, even if the federal basis is “self-evident," Gatlin v. Madding, 189 F.3d 882, 889 (9th Cir. 1999) (citing Anderson v. Harless, 459 U.S. 4, 7 . . . (1982), or the underlying claim would be decided under state law on the same considerations that would control resolution of the claim on federal grounds. Hiivala v. Wood, 195 F3d 1098, 1106-07 (9th Cir. 1999); Johnson v. Zenon, 88 F.3d 828, 830-31 (9th Cir. 1996); . . . . In Johnson, we explained that the petitioner must alert the state court to the fact that the relevant claim is a federal one without regard to how similar the state and federal standards for reviewing the claim may be or how obvious the violation of federal law is. 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lyons v. Crawford, 232 F.3d 666, 668-669 (9th Cir. 2000) (italics added). 13 In this case, Petitioner states that he has never sought relief in the California Supreme Court. 14 Therefore, the instant petition appears to be unexhausted. The Court must dismiss an unexhausted 15 petition to give Petitioner an opportunity to return to state court to exhaust his claims. 28 U.S.C. § 16 2254(b)(1); Rose, 455 U.S. at 521-22; Jiminez v. Rice, 276 F.3d 478, 481 (9th Cir.2001). 17 RECOMMENDATION 18 Accordingly, the Court RECOMMENDS that the petition for writ of habeas corpus be 19 DISMISSED without prejudice.1 Petitioner is forewarned that there is a one year limitations period 20 in which Petitioner must file a federal petition for writ of habeas corpus. 28 U.S.C. §2244(d)(1). In 21 22 23 1 A dismissal for failure to exhaust is not a dismissal on the merits, and Petitioner will not be barred from returning to federal court after Petitioner exhausts available state remedies by 28 U.S.C. § 2244 (b)’s prohibition on filing second petitions. See In re Turner, 101 F.3d 13 23 (9 th Cir. 19 96). However, the Suprem e Co urt has held that: 24 [I]n the habeas corpus context it would be appropriate for an order dismissing a mixed petition to instruct an applicant that upo n his return to federal co urt he is to bring o nly exhausted claims. See Fed. Rules Civ. Proc. 41(a) and (b). Once the petitioner is made aware of the e xhaustion req uirement, no reason exists for him no t to exha ust all potential claims before returning to federal court. T he failure to comply with an order o f the cou rt is grounds for dismissal with prejudice. Fed. Rules Civ. Proc. 41(b). 25 26 27 28 Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 489 (2000). Therefore, Petitioner is forewarned that in the event he returns to federal court and files a mixed petition of exhausted and unexhausted claims, the petition may be dismissed with prejudice. U.S . District C ourt E. D . C alifor nia cd 3 Case 1:06-cv-00044-OWW-LJO Document 9 Filed 01/26/2006 Page 4 of 4 1 most cases, the one year period starts to run on the date the California Supreme Court denies 2 Petitioner’s direct review. Rose v. Lundy, 455 U.S. 509, 521-522. The limitations period is tolled 3 while a properly filed request for collateral review is pending in state court. 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(2). 4 However, the limitations period is not tolled for the time such an application is pending in federal 5 court. Duncan v. Walker, 121 S.Ct. 2120, 2129 (2001). 6 This Findings and Recommendation is submitted to the Honorable Oliver W. Wanger, United 7 States District Court Judge, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Rule 72-304 8 of the Local Rules of Practice for the United States District Court, Eastern District of California. 9 Within thirty (30) days after being served with a copy, any party may file written objections with the 10 court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to 11 Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendation.” Replies to the objections shall be served and 12 filed within ten (10) court days (plus three days if served by mail) after service of the objections. 13 The Court will then review the Magistrate Judge’s ruling pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). The 14 parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to 15 appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 16 IT IS SO ORDERED. 17 Dated: b9ed48 January 25, 2006 /s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 U.S . District C ourt E. D . C alifor nia cd 4
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
