(HC) Griffin v. Price ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 DEXTER LAWRENCE GRIFFIN, Case No. 1:21-cv-01507-SAB-HC 11 Petitioner, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION TO DENY PETITIONER’S MOTION (ECF No. 12 v. 12) AND DISMISS PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS 13 BRANDON PRICE, ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT 14 Respondent. TO RANDOMLY ASSIGN DISTRICT JUDGE 15 16 Petitioner, who is civilly committed to Coalinga State Hospital, is proceeding pro se with 17 a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 18 I. 19 BACKGROUND 20 On September 30, 2021, Petitioner filed the instant petition for writ of habeas corpus in 21 the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. (ECF No. 1). On October 22 8, 2021, the petition was transferred to this Court. (ECF No. 3). Petitioner appears to challenge 23 an August 15, 2008 Sacramento County Superior Court determination that Petitioner is a 24 “sexually violent predator” (“SVP”) within the meaning of California Welfare and Institutions 25 Code § 6600, et seq., and his indefinite confinement. (ECF No. 1 at 1, 6).1 26 On October 14, 2021, the Court ordered Petitioner to show cause why the petition should 27 not be dismissed for failure to exhaust state court remedies. (ECF No. 7). On November 3, 2021, 1 the Court granted Petitioner an extension of time to file his response to the order to show cause 2 (“OSC”). (ECF No. 9). On November 18, 2021, Petitioner filed a document, which does not 3 inform the Court whether the claims raised in the federal petition were presented to the 4 California Supreme Court but does appear to argue that the petition should not be dismissed as 5 successive or untimely. (ECF 12). On December 20, 2021, Petitioner filed a motion for a second 6 extension of time to file his response to the OSC. (ECF No. 14). On December 21, 2021, the 7 Court denied the motion because Petitioner failed to state with particularity the reason to extend 8 the deadline and ordered that a response be filed within fourteen days. (ECF No. 16). Since the 9 December 21st order, Petitioner has not submitted any filing, and the fourteen-day period for 10 doing so has passed. 11 Accordingly, the Court construes the document filed on November 18, 2021 (ECF No. 12 12) as Petitioner’s response to the Court’s order to show cause. See Castro v. United States, 540 13 U.S. 375, 381–82 (2003) (courts may recharacterize a pro se motion to “create a better 14 correspondence between the substance of a pro se motion’s claim and its underlying legal 15 basis”); Bernhardt v. Los Angeles County, 339 F.3d 920, 925 (9th Cir. 2003) (courts have a duty 16 to construe pro se pleadings and motions liberally). 17 II. 18 DISCUSSION 19 Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases requires preliminary review of a 20 habeas petition and allows a district court to dismiss a petition before the respondent is ordered 21 to file a response, if it “plainly appears from the petition and any attached exhibits that the 22 petitioner is not entitled to relief in the district court.” Rule 4, Rules Governing Section 2254 23 Cases in the United States District Courts, 28 U.S.C. foll. § 2254. 24 A petitioner in state custody who is proceeding with a petition for writ of habeas corpus 25 must exhaust state judicial remedies. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(1). The exhaustion doctrine is based 26 on comity to the state court and gives the state court the initial opportunity to correct the state’s 27 alleged constitutional deprivations. Coleman v. Thompson, 501 U.S. 722, 731 (1991); Rose v. 1 providing the highest state court with a full and fair opportunity to consider each claim before 2 presenting it to the federal court. O’Sullivan v. Boerckel, 526 U.S. 838, 845 (1999); Duncan v. 3 Henry, 513 U.S. 364, 365 (1995); Picard v. Connor, 404 U.S. 270, 276 (1971). 4 From the petition, it appears Petitioner has previously filed challenges in the Sacramento 5 County Superior Court, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California, and 6 the Second, Third, and Ninth Circuits. (ECF No. 1 at 2–4). In his response, Petitioner does not 7 inform the Court whether the claims raised in the instant federal petition were presented to the 8 California Supreme Court. Rather, although it is not clear, Petitioner appears to argue that his 9 petition should not be dismissed as successive or untimely and provides copies of trust account 10 statements and various documents from his cases in this Court and the Northern District of 11 California. (ECF No. 12 at 13–42). As it appears Petitioner has not sought relief in the California 12 Supreme Court, the Court cannot proceed to the merits of his claims. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(1). 13 Accordingly, the Court finds that Petitioner’s claims are unexhausted, the petition should be 14 dismissed, and Petitioner’s motion for relief (ECF No. 12) should be denied. 15 III. 16 RECOMMENDATION & ORDER 17 Based on the foregoing, the undersigned HEREBY RECOMMENDS that: 18 1. The petition for writ of habeas corpus be DISMISSED without prejudice for failure to 19 exhaust state judicial remedies; and 20 2. Petitioner’s motion (ECF No. 12) be DENIED. 21 Further, the Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to randomly assign this action to a District 22 Judge. 23 This Findings and Recommendation is submitted to the United States District Court 24 Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(B) and Rule 304 25 of the Local Rules of Practice for the United States District Court, Eastern District of California. 26 Within THIRTY (30) days after service of the Findings and Recommendation, Petitioner may 27 file written objections with the Court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be 1 | District Judge will then review the Magistrate Judge’s ruling pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2 | $ 636(b)(1)(C). Petitioner is advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may 3 | result in the waiver of rights on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 839 (9th Cir. 2014) 4 | (citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)). 5 6 IT IS SO ORDERED. DAM Le 7 | Dated: _ February 11, 2022 ; UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28