Christopher James Sattiewhite v. Warden

• Court: District Court, C.D. California
• Decided: January 15, 2022
• Docket: 2:22-cv-00127
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

Case 2:22-cv-00127-JVS Document 4 Filed 01/15/22 Page 1 of 3 Page ID #:27

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 CHRISTOPHER SATTIEWHITE, ) CASE NO. CV 22-127-JVS ) 12 Petitioner, ) DEATH PENALTY CASE ) 13 v. ) ) ORDER DISMISSING PETITION 14 RON BROOMFIELD, Warden, ) FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS California State Prison at San ) WITHOUT PREJUDICE 15 Quentin, ) ) 16 Respondent. ) ) 17 18 I. INTRODUCTION 19 In January 2015, Petitioner Christopher Sattiewhite submitted a handwritten 20 request for the appointment of counsel. In it, Petitioner complained that since the 21 date on which his conviction and sentence were upheld on direct appeal in People 22 v. Sattiewhite, 59 Cal. 4th 446 (2014), he had not been appointed state habeas 23 counsel. This Court denied Petitioner’s request for the appointment of counsel as 24 presumptively premature because Petitioner had not exhausted his state court 25 remedies. In October 2020, Petitioner sought to commence federal habeas corpus 26 proceedings a second time by filing a pro se document entitled “Petition for Habeas 27 Corpus Counsel” in which he complained that the State of California had 28 excessively delayed the appointment of counsel to represent him in state habeas Case 2:22-cv-00127-JVS Document 4 Filed 01/15/22 Page 2 of 3 Page ID #:28

1 proceedings. This Court dismissed the habeas corpus action without prejudice on 2 grounds that the petition was unexhausted. On January 6, 2022, Petitioner initiated 3 the present proceedings by filing essentially a duplicate of the document he filed in 4 October 2020, again alleging an ongoing due process violation is occurring because 5 he has not yet had state habeas counsel appointed. 6 II. DISCUSSION 7 As this Court has repeatedly held in these matters, a federal court generally 8 may not grant habeas relief to a person in state custody unless he or she has first 9 exhausted the remedies available in state court. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(1)(A). To 10 properly exhaust state remedies, the petitioner “must fairly present his claim in each 11 appropriate state court (including a state supreme court with powers of 12 discretionary review), thereby alerting that court to the federal nature of the claim.” 13 Baldwin v. Reese, 541 U.S. 27, 29 (2004) (internal quotation marks omitted). 14 Also relevant here, “[a]n applicant shall not be deemed to have exhausted the 15 remedies available in the courts of the State . . . if he has the right under the law of 16 the State to raise, by any available procedure, the question presented.” 28 U.S.C. § 17 2254(c); see also Sherwood v. Tomkins, 716 F.2d 632, 634 (9th Cir. 1983) (“[E]ven 18 if the federal constitutional question raised by the habeas corpus petitioner cannot 19 be resolved in a pending state appeal, that appeal may result in the reversal of the 20 petitioner’s conviction on some other ground, thereby mooting the federal 21 question.”); see also Schnepp v. Oregon, 333 F.2d 288 (9th Cir. 1964) (applying 22 the same principle to pending state post-conviction proceedings). 23 Case law does not support Petitioner’s notion that lengthy delay in the state 24 court process would justify this Court allowing the initiation of federal habeas 25 corpus proceedings despite Petitioner’s failure to meet the exhaustion requirement. 26 Cf. Hayes v. Ayers, 632 F.3d 500, 523 (9th Cir. 2011) (denying Petitioner’s claim 27 that eleven year delay in filing state appellate brief amounted to a due process 28 violation); Blair v. Martel, 645 F.3d 1151, 1158 (9th Cir. 2011) (finding the federal 2 Case 2:22-cv-00127-JVS Document 4 Filed 01/15/22 Page 3of3 Page ID#:29

1 || court could not consider due process claim based on thirteen year appellate delay). 2] UI. CONCLUSION 3 Petitioner has presented an unexhausted petition to this Court, both because 4 || his claim was not fairly presented to the state’s highest court, and because he still 5 || has state habeas petitions pending. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 2254(b)(1)(A), (c); Baldwin, 6 || 541 U.S. at 29; Sherwood, 716 F.2d at 634. Accordingly, the Court DISMISSES 7 || this habeas action WITHOUT PREJUDICE to Petitioner filing a federal habeas 8 || petition at the appropriate time after he has exhausted his available remedies in the 9 || state courts. See Alfaro v. Johnson, 862 F.3d 1176, 1180-83 (9th Cir. 2017) 10 || (holding petitioner was not excused from failing to exhaust claim alleging 11 || unconstitutional systemic delay in the administration of California’s death penalty). 12 13 | IT IS SO ORDERED 14]| Dated: January 15, 2022 7 A f] 15 / ( J L 16 JAMES V/SELNA 4 SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28