West v. State of Washington, No. 1:2019cv03124 - Document 4 (E.D. Wash. 2019)
Court Description: ORDER GRANTING APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS AND SUMMARILY DISMISSING HABEAS CORPUS PETITION. The court further certifies that an appeal from this decision could not be taken in good faith, and there is no basis upon which to issue a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. 2253(c);Fed. R. App. P. 22(b). Signed by Judge Salvador Mendoza, Jr. (PL, Case Administrator) **6 PAGES, PRINT ALL** (Ira West, Prisoner ID: 704227)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
West v. State of Washington Doc. 4 1 FI LED I N THE U.S. DI STRI CT COURT EASTERN DI STRI CT OF WASHI NGTON 2 Jul 22, 2019 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 3 SEAN F. MCAVOY, CLERK 4 IRA L. WEST, No. 1:19-cv-03124-SMJ 5 Petitioner, 6 v. 7 STATE OF WASHINGTON, ORDER GRANTING APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS AND SUMMARILY DISMISSING HABEAS CORPUS PETITION 8 Respondent. 9 10 Petitioner Ira L. West, a prisoner at the Coyote Ridge Corrections Center, 11 brings this pro se Petition Under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 for Writ of Habeas Corpus By a 12 Person in State Custody, ECF No. 1. Because it appears Petitioner lacks sufficient 13 funds to prosecute this action, his request to proceed in forma pauperis is granted 14 and this action may proceed without payment of the filing fee. 15 PROPER RESPONDENT 16 An initial defect with the petition is that it fails to name a proper party as a 17 respondent. The proper respondent in a federal petition seeking habeas corpus relief 18 is the person having custody of the petitioner. Rumsfeld v. Padilla, 542 U.S. 426 19 (2004); Stanley v. Cal. Supreme Court, 21 F.3d 359, 360 (9th Cir. 1994). If the 20 petitioner is incarcerated, the proper respondent is generally the warden of the ORDER GRANTING APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS AND SUMMARILY DISMISSING HABEAS CORPUS PETITION - 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 institution where the petitioner is incarcerated. See Ortiz-Sandoval v. Gomez, 81 2 F.3d 891 (9th Cir. 1996). Failure to name a proper respondent deprives federal 3 courts of personal jurisdiction. See Stanley, 21 F.3d at 360. 4 EXHAUSTION REQUIREMENT 5 Petitioner challenges his 2018 Yakima County plea of nolo contendere to 6 second degree assault, domestic violence; felony violation of a no-contact order, 7 domestic violence; felony harassment, domestic violence; and four additional 8 charges of felony harassment and violation of a no-contact order, domestic violence. 9 He received a sentence of thirty months’ confinement. Petitioner indicates that he 10 did not appeal from the judgment of conviction. ECF No. 1 at 2. 11 In his grounds for relief, Petitioner argues that the State of Washington has 12 no jurisdiction to decide federal constitutional matters. Id. at 5–12. It has long been 13 settled that state courts are competent to decide questions arising under the U.S. 14 Constitution. See Baker v. Grice, 169 U.S. 284, 291 (1898) (“It is the duty of the 15 state court, as much as it is that of the federal courts, when the question of the 16 validity of a state statute is necessarily involved, as being in alleged violation of any 17 provision of the federal constitution, to decide that question, and to hold the law 18 void if it violate that instrument.”); see also Worldwide Church of God v. McNair, 19 805 F.2d 888, 891 (9th Cir. 1986) (holding that state courts are as competent as 20 federal courts to decide federal constitutional matters). Therefore, Petitioner’s ORDER GRANTING APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS AND SUMMARILY DISMISSING HABEAS CORPUS PETITION - 2 1 arguments to the contrary lack merit. 2 Additionally, before a federal court may grant habeas corpus relief to a state 3 prisoner, the prisoner must exhaust the state court remedies available to him or her. 4 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b); Baldwin v. Reese, 541 U.S. 27 (2004). Exhaustion generally 5 requires that a prisoner give the state courts an opportunity to act on his or her claims 6 before he or she presents those claims to a federal court. O’Sullivan v. Boerckel, 7 526 U.S. 838 (1999). A petitioner has not exhausted a claim for relief so long as he 8 or she has a right under state law to raise the claim by an available procedure. See 9 id.; 28 U.S.C. § 2254(c). 10 To meet the exhaustion requirement, the petitioner must have “fairly 11 present[ed] his claim in each appropriate state court (including a state supreme court 12 with powers of discretionary review), thereby alerting that court to the federal 13 nature of the claim.” Baldwin, 541 U.S. at 29; see also Duncan v. Henry, 513 U.S. 14 364, 365–66 (1995). A petitioner fairly presents a claim to a state court by 15 describing the factual or legal bases for that claim and by alerting the state court “to 16 the fact that the . . . [petitioner is] asserting claims under the United States 17 Constitution.” Duncan, 513 U.S. at 365–66; see also Tamalini v. Stewart, 249 F.3d 18 895, 898 (9th Cir. 2001) (same). Mere similarity between a claim raised in a state 19 court and a claim in a federal habeas corpus petition is insufficient. Duncan, 513 20 U.S. at 365–66. ORDER GRANTING APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS AND SUMMARILY DISMISSING HABEAS CORPUS PETITION - 3 1 Furthermore, to fairly present a claim, the petitioner “must give the state 2 courts one full opportunity to resolve any constitutional issues by invoking one 3 complete round of the State’s established appellate review process.” O’Sullivan, 4 526 U.S. at 845. Once a federal claim has been fairly presented to the state courts, 5 the exhaustion requirement is satisfied. See Picard v. Connor, 404 U.S. 270, 275 6 (1971). It appears from the face of the petition and the attached documents that 7 Petitioner has not exhausted his state court remedies as to each of his grounds for 8 relief. Indeed, Petitioner affirmatively represents that he did not exhaust his state 9 court remedies. 10 GROUNDS FOR FEDERAL HABEAS CORPUS RELIEF 11 Petitioner asserts that the Washington State Constitution contradicts the U.S. 12 Constitution regarding the Fifth Amendment right to “presentment or indictment of 13 a Grand Jury.” ECF No. 1. He claims “no bill of indictment” was brought against 14 him, rendering his arrest, conviction, and imprisonment illegal. Id. 15 Petitioner seems to argue that because the state courts have defied “federally 16 established procedures and processes for the adjudication of crimes,” only “a court 17 of federal jurisdiction” has jurisdictional authority over his claims. Id. His bald 18 assertion that “due process of the law was ignored” is unsupported by his factual 19 allegations. Id. 20 As the U.S. Supreme Court stated long ago, “Prosecution by information ORDER GRANTING APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS AND SUMMARILY DISMISSING HABEAS CORPUS PETITION - 4 1 instead of by indictment is provided for by the laws of Washington. This is not a 2 violation of the Federal Constitution.” See Gaines v. Washington, 277 U.S. 81, 86 3 (1928). There is simply no federal constitutional violation when a prosecuting 4 attorney’s criminal information is substituted for a grand jury’s indictment. See 5 Hurtado v. California, 110 U.S. 516 (1884) (rejecting the claim that an indictment 6 is essential to due process of law and that a state violates the Fourteenth Amendment 7 by prosecuting a defendant with a criminal information). Consequently, Petitioner’s 8 assertions to the contrary presented in his four grounds for federal habeas corpus 9 relief are legally frivolous. 10 Because it plainly appears from the petition and accompanying documents 11 that Petitioner is not entitled to relief in this Court, IT IS ORDERED that the 12 petition, ECF No. 1, is DISMISSED pursuant to Rule 4 of the Rules Governing 13 Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts. All pending motions are 14 DENIED AS MOOT. 15 // 16 // 17 // 18 // 19 // 20 // ORDER GRANTING APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS AND SUMMARILY DISMISSING HABEAS CORPUS PETITION - 5 1 IT IS SO ORDERED. The Clerk’s Office is directed to enter this Order, 2 enter judgment, provide copies to Petitioner, and close the file. The Court certifies 3 that, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), an appeal from this decision could not be 4 taken in good faith and there is no basis upon which to issue a certificate of 5 appealability. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c); Fed. R. App. P. 22(b). A certificate of 6 appealability is therefore DENIED. 7 8 9 DATED this 22nd day of July 2019. _________________________ SALVADOR MENDOZA, JR. United States District Judge 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 ORDER GRANTING APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS AND SUMMARILY DISMISSING HABEAS CORPUS PETITION - 6
]]>
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.
