(HC) Thao v. Swarthouth, No. 2:2009cv03536 - Document 9 (E.D. Cal. 2010)
Court Description: ORDER AND FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Dale A. Drozd on 1/29/2010 ORDERING the clerk to randomly assign a US District Judge to this action; and the clerk to serve a copy of these F&R w/ a copy of the petition on the AG; and RECOMMENDING that petitioner's 1 petition for writ of hc be dismissed for failure to exhaust state remedies; petitioner's 4 motion to stay and abeyance be denied; and this action be closed. Assigned and Referred to Judge William B. Shubb; Objections to F&R due w/in 21 days. (cc: Michael Farrell)(Yin, K)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
(HC) Thao v. Swarthouth Doc. 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 CHARLES CHONG THAO, 11 Petitioner, 12 13 No. CIV S-09-3536 DAD P vs. WARDEN SWARTHOUTH, 14 ORDER AND Respondent. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 15 / 16 Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed a petition for writ of habeas 17 corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. In accordance with the court’s December 31, 2009 order, 18 petitioner has paid the filing fee. 19 PRELIMINARY SCREENING 20 Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases allows a district court to 21 dismiss a petition if it “plainly appears from the face of the petition and any exhibits annexed to 22 it that the petitioner is not entitled to relief in the district court. . . .” Rule 4, Rules Governing 23 Section 2254 Cases. The Advisory Committee Notes to Rule 8 indicate that the court may 24 dismiss a petition for writ of habeas corpus at several stages of a case, including “summary 25 dismissal under Rule 4; a dismissal pursuant to a motion by the respondent; a dismissal after the 26 ///// 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 answer and petition are considered; or a dismissal after consideration of the pleadings and an 2 expanded record.” 3 BACKGROUND 4 On December 22, 2009, petitioner commenced this action by filing a petition for 5 writ of habeas corpus, challenging his 2007 judgment of conviction for robbery and kidnapping 6 entered by the Sacramento County Superior Court. In his petition, petitioner raises several 7 claims of ineffective assistance of counsel as well as a claim of actual innocence. According to 8 the petition, petitioner appealed his conviction to the California Court of Appeal for the Third 9 Appellate District and the California Supreme Court. However, it appears that he did not raise 10 any of the claims set forth in his pending federal petition on appeal or in any subsequent petitions 11 for post-conviction relief to the California Supreme Court. (Pet. at 2, 5 & Supp.) 12 Recognizing that this court cannot grant relief on unexhausted claims, petitioner 13 has filed a motion for a stay and abeyance. Therein, he argues that he has diligently pursued his 14 claims, that his claims have merit, and that his motion for a stay and abeyance is not for purposes 15 of delay or abuse of the process. In this regard, petitioner maintains that he has demonstrated 16 good cause for a stay and abeyance under Rhines v. Weber, 544 U.S. 269 (2005). (Pet’r’s Mot. 17 for Stay & Abey. at 1-5.) 18 ANALYSIS 19 The exhaustion of state court remedies is a prerequisite to the granting of a 20 petition for writ of habeas corpus. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(1). If exhaustion is to be waived, it must 21 be waived explicitly by respondent’s counsel. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(3).1 A waiver of exhaustion, 22 thus, may not be implied or inferred. A petitioner satisfies the exhaustion requirement by 23 providing the highest state court with a full and fair opportunity to consider all claims before 24 ///// 25 1 26 A petition may be denied on the merits without exhaustion of state court remedies. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(2). 2 1 presenting them to the federal court. Picard v. Connor, 404 U.S. 270, 276 (1971); Middleton v. 2 Cupp, 768 F.2d 1083, 1086 (9th Cir. 1986). 3 In this case, it appears that petitioner has not presented any of the claims pending 4 in his federal petition to the California Supreme Court. Although petitioner has filed a motion 5 for a stay and abeyance in order to exhaust his claims in state court, petitioner is advised that a 6 stay and abeyance is not available where, as here, the petition is wholly unexhausted. See 7 Raspberry v. Garcia, 448 F.3d 1150, 1154 (9th Cir. 2006). In Raspberry, the Ninth Circuit 8 explained: 9 District courts have the discretion to hold a mixed petition in abeyance pending exhaustion of the unexhausted claims. We decline to extend that rule to the situation where the original habeas petition contained only unexhausted claims . . . . Once a district court determines that a habeas petition contains only unexhausted claims, it need not inquire further as to petitioner’s intentions. Instead, it may simply dismiss the habeas petition for failure to exhaust. 10 11 12 13 14 Id. at 1154. See also, e.g., Dotson v. Uribe, No. CV 09-6115-FMC (PLA), 2009 WL 4885200, at 15 *4 (C.D. Cal. Dec. 14, 2009) (denying a motion for a stay and abeyance because the federal 16 petition contained only unexhausted claims); Brown v. Dexter, No. CV 08-1119-SGL (VBK), 17 2008 WL 4384181, at *4 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 21, 2008) (same). 18 Here, the court is not presented with a mixed petition. Rather, it appears that the 19 instant petition contains only unexhausted claims. Accordingly, the court concludes that 20 petitioner’s motion for a stay and abeyance should be denied, and this action should be dismissed 21 without prejudice due to petitioner’s failure to exhaust state court remedies. 22 CONCLUSION 23 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 24 1. The Clerk of the Court is directed to randomly assign a United States District 25 Judge to this action; and 26 ///// 3 1 2. The Clerk of the Court is directed to serve a copy of these findings and 2 recommendations together with a copy of the petition filed in the instant case on the Attorney 3 General of the State of California. 4 IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that: 5 1. Petitioner’s December 22, 2009 petition for writ of habeas corpus (Doc. No. 1) 6 be dismissed for failure to exhaust state remedies; 7 8 2. Petitioner’s December 22, 2009 motion for a stay and abeyance (Doc. No. 4) be denied; and 9 3. This action be closed. 10 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District 11 Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within twenty- 12 one days after being served with these findings and recommendations, petitioner may file written 13 objections with the court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge's 14 Findings and Recommendations.” Petitioner is advised that failure to file objections within the 15 specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court's order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 16 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 17 DATED: January 29, 2010. 18 19 20 DAD:9 thao3536.103 21 22 23 24 25 26 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.
