(HC) Michl v. Black ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JOSHUA MICHL, No. 2:22-cv-0688 DB P 12 Petitioner, 13 v. ORDER AND FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 14 CINDY BLACK, 15 Respondent. 16 17 Petitioner is a civil detainee proceeding pro se with a petition for a writ of habeas corpus 18 under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Petitioner has paid the filing fee. Before the court is petitioner’s habeas 19 petition for screening. For the reasons set forth below, this court recommends the petition be 20 dismissed without prejudice for petitioner’s failure to exhaust his state remedies. 21 Under Rule 4 of the Rules Governing § 2254 Cases, the court is required to conduct a 22 preliminary review of all petitions for writ of habeas corpus. Pursuant to Rule 4, the court must 23 summarily dismiss a petition if it “plainly appears from the petition and any attached exhibits that 24 the petitioner is not entitled to relief in the district court.” 25 Petitioner is detained at Napa State Hospital pursuant to a commitment order issued by the 26 Butte County Superior Court. He appears to raise two claims. First, petitioner challenges the 27 legal proceedings that resulted in his commitment under California Penal Code § 1368, et seq. 28 //// 1 Second, petitioner contends that Napa State Hospital staff forced him to violate his Miranda 2 rights. 3 Initially, this court notes that a petition for writ of habeas corpus is the proper vehicle for a 4 challenge to petitioner’s commitment. See Duncan v. Walker, 533 U.S. 167, 176 (2001) (federal 5 habeas corpus review may be available to challenge the legality of a state court order of civil 6 commitment or a state court order of civil contempt); Huftile v. Miccio-Fonseca, 410 F.3d 1136, 7 1139-40 (9th Cir. 2005) (“[D]etainees under an involuntary civil commitment scheme...may use a 8 § 2254 habeas petition to challenge a term of confinement.”); Swinger v. Harris, No. CV 16- 9 05694-JVS (DFM), 2016 WL 4374941, at *2 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 12, 2016) (finding plaintiff’s sole 10 remedy for invalidating his mentally disordered offender confinement and obtaining release from 11 Atascadero State Hospital was a habeas petition). 12 It is apparent from the face of the petition that petitioner has not exhausted his state 13 remedies before filing this federal petition. A petitioner who is in state custody and wishes to 14 challenge his detention by a petition for writ of habeas corpus must have exhausted state judicial 15 remedies. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(1). The exhaustion doctrine is based on comity to the state court 16 and gives the state court the initial opportunity to correct the state’s alleged constitutional 17 deprivations. Coleman v. Thompson, 501 U.S. 722, 731 (1991); Rose v. Lundy, 455 U.S. 509, 18 518 (1982); Buffalo v. Sunn, 854 F.2d 1158, 1163 (9th Cir. 1988). 19 A petitioner can satisfy the exhaustion requirement by providing the highest state court 20 with a full and fair opportunity to consider each claim before presenting it to the federal court. 21 Duncan v. Henry, 513 U.S. 364, 365 (1995); Picard v. Connor, 404 U.S. 270, 276 (1971); 22 Johnson v. Zenon, 88 F.3d 828, 829 (9th Cir. 1996). A federal court will find that the highest 23 state court was given a full and fair opportunity to hear a claim if the petitioner has presented the 24 highest state court with the claim’s factual and legal bases. Duncan, 513 U.S. at 365 (legal basis); 25 Keeney v. Tamayo-Reyes, 504 U.S. 1, 9 (1992) (factual basis). 26 Petitioner states that he did not exhaust his claims because he does not have legal 27 representation and needed assistance to file his federal petition. A petitioner may only be excused 28 from the exhaustion requirement if he shows “there is an absence of available State corrective 1 | process” or “circumstances exist that render such process ineffective to protect the rights of the 2 | applicant.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(1)(B). While the court is sympathetic to the difficulties 3 | petitioner faces in meeting the requirements of the federal habeas statute, his need for some 4 | assistance is not sufficient to excuse the exhaustion requirement. 5 For the foregoing reasons, the Clerk of the Court IS HEREBY ORDERED to randomly 6 | assign a district judge to this case; and 7 IT IS RECOMMENDED that the petition be dismissed without prejudice for petitioner’s 8 | failure to exhaust his state remedies. 9 These findings and recommendations will be submitted to the United States District Judge 10 | assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within thirty days after 11 | being served with these findings and recommendations, petitioner may file written objections 12 || with the court and serve a copy on all parties. The document should be captioned “Objections to 13 | Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendations.” Petitioner is advised that failure to file 14 | objections within the specified time may result in waiver of the right to appeal the district court’s 15 order. Martinez v. YIst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). In the objections, petitioner may address 16 || whether a certificate of appealability should issue in the event an appeal of the judgment in this 17 | case is filed. See Rule 11, Rules Governing § 2254 Cases (the district court must issue or deny a 18 | certificate of appealability when it enters a final order adverse to the applicant). 19 | Dated: May 13, 2022 21 ‘BORAH BARNES UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 23 24 | DLB:9 DB Prisoner Inbox/Habeas/S/mich0688.scrn fr 25 26 27 28