(HC) Arvaiza Mendez v. Dept 2 Misdemeanor Court ( 2023 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MAURICIO ISMAEL ARVAIZA No. 1:23-cv-00502-ADA-HBK (HC) MENDEZ, 12 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO Petitioner, DISMISS PETITION FOR FAILURE TO 13 STATE A CLAIM AND FAILURE TO v. EXHAUST ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES1 14 DEPT. 2 MISDEMEANOR COURT, (Doc. No. 1) 15 Respondent. FOURTEEN-DAY OBJECTION PERIOD 16 17 18 Petitioner Mauricio Ismael Arvaiza Mendez (“Petitioner”), a state prisoner, initiated this 19 action by filling a pro se petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. (Doc. No. 1, 20 “Petition”). This matter is now before the Court for preliminary review. See Rules Governing § 21 2254 Cases, Rule 4; 28 U.S.C. § 2243. For the reasons set forth below, the Court recommends 22 that the Petition be DISMISSED without prejudice for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. 23 Additionally, the Court finds the Petition fails to state a cognizable claim . 24 I. BACKGROUND 25 Petitioner states he was sentenced to an “inpatient treatment program” after pleading 26 guilty to misdemeanor battery and another misdemeanor charge, and was “remanded into 27 1 This matter was referred to the undersigned pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302 28 (E.D. Cal. 2022). 1 custody” after he did not complete the program. (Doc. No. 1 at 1). The Petition raises one 2 ground for relief: that Petitioner “should have been granted my time served and cases to be 3 thrown out or resolved.” (Id. at 3). 4 II. APPLICABLE LAW AND ANALYSIS 5 Rule 4 of the Rules Governing § 2254 Cases requires the Court to make a preliminary 6 review of each petition for writ of habeas corpus. The Court must dismiss a petition “[i]f it 7 plainly appears from the petition . . . that the petitioner is not entitled to relief.” Rule 4 of the 8 Rules Governing § 2254 Cases; see also Hendricks v. Vasquez, 908 F.2d 490, 491 (9th Cir. 1990). 9 The Advisory Committee Notes to Rule 8 indicate that the Court may dismiss a petition for writ 10 of habeas corpus, either on its own motion under Rule 4, pursuant to the respondent’s motion to 11 dismiss, or after an answer to the petition has been filed. Courts have “an active role in 12 summarily disposing of facially defective habeas petitions” under Rule 4. Ross v. Williams, 896 13 F.3d 958, 968 (9th Cir. 2018) (citation omitted). However, a petition for habeas corpus should 14 not be dismissed without leave to amend unless it appears that no tenable claim for relief can be 15 pleaded were such leave granted. Jarvis v. Nelson, 440 F.2d 13, 14 (9th Cir. 1971). 16 A. Failure to State a Cognizable Claim 17 The basic scope of habeas corpus is prescribed by statute. Title 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c)(3) 18 provides that the writ of habeas corpus shall not extend to a prisoner unless “[h]e is in custody in 19 violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.” The Supreme Court has 20 held that “the essence of habeas corpus is an attack by a person in custody upon the legality of 21 that custody . . .” Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 484 (1973). If a prisoner’s claim “would 22 necessarily demonstrate the invalidity of confinement or its duration,” a habeas petition is the 23 appropriate avenue for the claim. Wilkinson v. Dotson, 544 U.S. 74, 82 (2005). In addition, Rule 24 2(c) of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases requires that the petition 25 (1) Specify all the grounds for relief available to the petitioner; (2) State the facts supporting each ground; 26 (3) State the relief requested; 27 (4) Be printed, typewritten, or legibly handwritten; and (5) Be signed under penalty of perjury by the petitioner or by a person authorized to sign 28 it for the petitioner under 28 U.S.C. § 2242. 1 Further, 28 U.S.C. § 2242 requires a petitioner to allege the facts concerning the petitioner’s 2 commitment or detention. 3 Here, Petitioner has failed to comply with the aforementioned statutes and rules. Other 4 than conclusory statements, Petitioner has not specified any factual allegations to support his 5 ground for relief, nor has he provided specific information regarding his conviction and the 6 sentence he received. (See generally Doc. No. 1). Based on the foregoing, the undersigned 7 recommends Petition be dismissed for failure to state a cognizable claim. Further, because 8 Petitioner concedes he has failed to exhaust administrative remedies affording Petitioner an 9 opportunity to file an amended petition would be futile. 10 B. Failure to Exhaust Administrative Remedies 11 A petitioner in state custody who wishes to proceed on a federal petition for a writ of 12 habeas corpus must exhaust state judicial remedies. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(1). Exhaustion is a 13 “threshold” matter that must be satisfied before the court can consider the merits of each claim. 14 Day v. McDonough, 547 U.S. 198, 205 (2006). The exhaustion doctrine is based on comity and 15 permits the state court the initial opportunity to resolve any alleged constitutional deprivations. 16 See Coleman v. Thompson, 501 U.S. 722, 731 (1991); Rose v. Lundy, 455 U.S. 509, 518 (1982). 17 To satisfy the exhaustion requirement, petitioner must provide the highest state court with a full 18 and fair opportunity to consider each claim before presenting it to the federal court. See 19 O’Sullivan v. Boerckel, 526 U.S. 838, 845 (1999); Duncan v. Henry, 513 U.S. 364, 365 (1995). 20 The burden of proving exhaustion rests with the petitioner. Darr v. Burford, 339 U.S. 200, 218 21 (1950) (overruled in part on other grounds by Fay v. Noia, 372 U.S. 391 (1963)). A failure to 22 exhaust may only be excused where the petitioner shows that “there is an absence of available 23 State corrective process” or “circumstances exist that render such process ineffective to protect 24 the rights of the applicant.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(1)(B)(i)-(ii). 25 Here, Petitioner concedes that he has not appealed his conviction and sentence, nor has he 26 sought review of his claim in the California Supreme Court. (Doc. No. 1 at 5). Because 27 Petitioner concedes he has failed to exhaust his claim, the undersigned recommends the district 28 court dismiss the Petition because the purported sole ground for relief is unexhausted. If 1 Petitioner presented his claim to the California Supreme Court, he should provide proof of this 2 filing to the court in his objections to these findings and recommendations. 3 III. CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY 4 State prisoners in a habeas corpus action under § 2254 do not have an automatic right to 5 appeal a final order. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A); Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 335-36 6 (2003). To appeal, a prisoner must obtain a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2); 7 see also R. Governing Section 2254 Cases 11 (requires a district court to issue or deny a 8 certificate of appealability when entering a final order adverse to a petitioner); Ninth Circuit Rule 9 22-1(a); United States v. Asrar, 116 F.3d 1268, 1270 (9th Cir. 1997). Where, as here, the court 10 denies habeas relief on procedural grounds without reaching the merits of the underlying 11 constitutional claims, the court should issue a certificate of appealability only “if jurists of reason 12 would find it debatable whether the petition states a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional 13 right and that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the district court was correct in its 14 procedural ruling.” Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). “Where a plain procedural bar 15 is present and the district court is correct to invoke it to dispose of the case, a reasonable jurist 16 could not conclude either that the district court erred in dismissing the petition or that the 17 petitioner should be allowed to proceed further.” Id. Here, reasonable jurists would not find the 18 undersigned’s conclusion debatable or conclude that petitioner should proceed further. The 19 undersigned therefore recommends that a certificate of appealability not issue 20 Accordingly, it is RECOMMENDED: 21 1. The Petition (Doc. No. 1) be DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for failure to state 22 a cognizable claim and failure to exhaust administrative remedies. 23 2. Petitioner be denied a certificate of appealability. 24 NOTICE TO PARTIES 25 These findings and recommendations will be submitted to the United States district judge 26 assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within fourteen (14) 27 days after being served with these findings and recommendations, a party may file written 28 objections with the court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s 1 | Findings and Recommendations.” Parties are advised that failure to file objections within the 2 | specified time may result in the waiver of rights on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 3 | 838-39 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)). 4 > | Dated: _ May 1, 2023 Mile. □□□ foareA Zacks 6 HELENA M. BARCH-KUCHTA 4 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28