(HC) Turner v. Schubert ( 2019 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ANTHONY DEWAYNE LEE TURNER, No. 2:19-cv-1059 DB P 12 Petitioner, 13 v. ORDER AND FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 14 ANNE MARIE SCHUBERT, 15 Respondent. 16 17 Petitioner, a state inmate proceeding pro se, has filed an application for a writ of habeas 18 corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Petitioner claims he received ineffective assistance of 19 counsel from his trial attorney. Presently before the court is petitioner’s motion to proceed in 20 forma pauperis and his petition for screening. For the reasons set forth below, the court will 21 recommend that this action be dismissed without prejudice. 22 I. In Forma Pauperis 23 Examination of the in forma pauperis application reveals that petitioner is unable to afford 24 the costs of suit. Accordingly, the application to proceed in forma pauperis will be granted. See 25 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). 26 II. Screening Requirement 27 Under Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases, this court is required to conduct 28 a preliminary review of all petitions for writ of habeas corpus filed by state prisoners. Pursuant to 1 Rule 4, this court must summarily dismiss a petition if it “plainly appears from the petition and 2 any attached exhibits that the petitioner is not entitled to relief in the district court.” 3 III. Exhaustion 4 There is no question that the exhaustion of state court remedies is a prerequisite to the 5 granting of a petition for writ of habeas corpus. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(1). “Under the exhaustion 6 requirement, a habeas petitioner challenging a state conviction must first attempt to present his 7 claim in state court.” Harrington v. Richter, 562 U.S. 86, 103 (2011); see also O’Sullivan v. 8 Boerckel, 526 U.S. 838, 845 (1999) (“the exhaustion doctrine is designed to give the state courts 9 a full and fair opportunity to resolve federal constitutional claims before those claims are 10 presented to the federal courts”). A petitioner satisfies the exhaustion requirement by providing 11 the highest state court with a full and fair opportunity to consider all claims before presenting 12 them to the federal court. Picard v. Connor, 404 U.S. 270, 276 (1971); Middleton v. Cupp, 768 13 F.2d 1983, 1086 (9th Cir. 1985), cert. denied, 478 U.S. 1021 (1986). For a California prisoner to 14 exhaust, he must present his claims to the California Supreme Court on appeal in a petition for 15 review or post-conviction in a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in which he adequately 16 describes the federal Constitutional issue that he asserts was denied. See Gatlin v. Madding, 189 17 F.3d 882, 888 (9th Cir. 1999). 18 Although non-exhaustion of remedies has been viewed as an affirmative defense, it is the 19 petitioner’s burden to prove that state judicial remedies were properly exhausted. 28 U.S.C. § 20 2254(b)(1)(A); Darr v. Burford, 339 U.S. 200, 218-19 (1950), overruled in part on other grounds 21 by Fay v. Noia, 372 U.S. 391 (1963); Cartwright v. Cupp, 650 F.2d 1103, 1104 (9th Cir. 1981). 22 The court may, but is not required to, raise the issue of exhaustion sue sponte. See Aiken v. 23 Spalding, 841 F.2d 881, 883 (9th Cir. 1988) (per curium); Simmons v. Blodgett, 110 F.3d 39, 41 24 (9th Cir. 1997). Failure to present claims for federal relief to the California Supreme Court will 25 result in dismissal. Raspberry v. Garcia, 448 F.3d 1150, 1154 (9th Cir. 2006); Jimenez v. Rice, 26 276 F.3d 478, 481 (9th Cir. 2001). 27 Petitioner stated in his petition that he did not appeal his conviction (ECF No. 1 at 1) and 28 that he has not presented a petition for writ of habeas corpus to the highest state court (ECF No. 1 1 | at 3.) Because petitioner has not exhausted, the court must dismiss the petition. See Rose v. 2 | Lundy, 455 U.S. 509, 521-22 (1982) (The court cannot consider a petition that has not been 3 | exhausted). 4 IV. Conclusion 5 For the reasons set forth above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 6 1. Petitioner’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 5) is granted; and 7 2. The Clerk of the Court is directed to randomly assign this action to a district judge. 8 IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed without prejudice for 9 | failure to exhaust state remedies. 10 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Court 11 || Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within fourteen 12 | days after being served with these findings and recommendations, petitioner may file written 13 | objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned 14 | “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” In his objections, petitioner 15 | may address whether a certificate of appealability should issue in the event he files an appeal of 16 | the judgment in this case. See 28 U.S.C. 2253(c) (absent a certificate of appealability, an appeal 17 | may not be taken from the final decision of a district judge in a habeas corpus proceeding or a 18 | proceeding under 28 U.S.C. § 2255). Failure to file objections within the specified time may 19 || waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. YIst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 20 | 1991). 21 | Dated: August 23, 2019 23 A ‘BORAH BARNES UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 25 26 27 DLB:12 28 || DLB:1/Orders/Prisoner/Habeas/turn1059.scrn.dism