Crooks v. Ignoramis

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 WILLIAM GRANT CROOKS, Case No.: 3:20-cv-0407-LAB-RBM

12 Petitioner, ORDER DISMISSING SECOND 13 v. AMENDED PETITION WITHOUT PREJUDICE 14 IGNORAMIS, et al., 15 Respondents. 16 17 On March 2, 2020, Petitioner, a civil detainee proceeding pro se, filed a Petition 18 for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, in which he appeared to be 19 challenging his continued involuntary commitment to Patton State Hospital, after being 20 found not guilty by reason of insanity in 1982. (See Pet., ECF No. 1.) On March 4, 21 2020, the Court dismissed the case without prejudice because Petitioner failed to satisfy 22 the filing fee requirement, failed to state a cognizable claim and failed to name a proper 23 respondent. Petitioner was instructed that to have this case reopened he had to (1) either 24 pay the filing fee or provide adequate proof of his inability to pay and (2) file a First 25 Amended Petition no later than May 8, 2020. (ECF No. 2.) On April 1, 2020, Petitioner 26 paid the $5.00 filing fee and filed a First Amended Petition, pursuant to this Court’s 27 Order. (ECF Nos. 3 & 4.) On April 8, 2020, the Court dismissed the First Amended 28 Petition for failure to state a cognizable claim and gave Petitioner until May 16, 2020 to 1 file a Second Amended Petition. (ECF No. 5.) On May 14, 2020, Petitioner filed a 2 Second Amended Petition. (ECF No. 6.) 3 FAILURE TO EXHAUST STATE JUDICIAL REMEDIES 4 The Second Amended Petition must be dismissed because Petitioner has failed to 5 allege exhaustion of state judicial remedies. Habeas petitioners who wish to challenge 6 either their state court conviction or the length of their confinement in state prison, must 7 first exhaust state judicial remedies. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b), (c); Granberry v. Greer, 481 8 U.S. 129, 133-34 (1987). To exhaust state judicial remedies, a California state prisoner 9 must present the California Supreme Court with a fair opportunity to rule on the merits of 10 every issue raised in his or her federal habeas petition. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b), (c); 11 Granberry, 481 U.S. at 133-34. Moreover, to properly exhaust state court remedies a 12 petitioner must allege, in state court, how one or more of his or her federal rights have 13 been violated. The Supreme Court in Duncan v. Henry, 513 U.S. 364 (1995) reasoned: 14 “If state courts are to be given the opportunity to correct alleged violations of prisoners’ 15 federal rights, they must surely be alerted to the fact that the prisoners are asserting 16 claims under the United States Constitution.” Id. at 365-66 (emphasis added). For 17 example, “[i]f a habeas petitioner wishes to claim that an evidentiary ruling at a state 18 court trial denied him [or her] the due process of law guaranteed by the Fourteenth 19 Amendment, he [or she] must say so, not only in federal court, but in state court.” Id. at 20 366 (emphasis added). 21 Nowhere on the Petition does Petitioner allege that he raised his claims in the 22 California Supreme Court. In fact, he specifically indicates he did not seek such review. 23 (See Pet. at 6–8.) If Petitioner has raised his claims in the California Supreme Court he 24 must so specify. “The burden of proving that a claim has been exhausted lies with the 25 petitioner.” Matthews v. Evatt, 105 F.3d 907, 911 (4th Cir. 1997); see Breard v. Pruett, 26 134 F.3d 615, 619 (4th Cir. 1998); Lambert v. Blackwell, 134 F.3d 506, 513 (3d Cir. 27 1997); Oyler v. Allenbrand, 23 F.3d 292, 300 (10th Cir. 1994); Rust v. Zent, 17 F.3d 155, 28 160 (6th Cir. 1994). 1 Further, the Court cautions Petitioner that under the Antiterrorism and Effective 2 Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA) a one-year period of limitation shall apply to a 3 petition for a writ of habeas corpus by a person in custody pursuant to the judgment of a 4 State court. The limitation period shall run from the latest of: 5 (A) the date on which the judgment became final by the conclusion of direct 6 review or the expiration of the time for seeking such review; 7 (B) the date on which the impediment to filing an application created by 8 State action in violation of the Constitution or laws of the United States is 9 removed, if the applicant was prevented from filing by such State action;

10 (C) the date on which the constitutional right asserted was initially 11 recognized by the Supreme Court, if the right has been newly recognized by the Supreme Court and made retroactively applicable to cases on collateral 12 review; or 13 (D) the date on which the factual predicate of the claim or claims presented 14 could have been discovered through the exercise of due diligence. 15 16 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1)(A)-(D) (West 2006). 17 The statute of limitations does not run while a properly filed state habeas corpus 18 petition is pending. 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(2); see Nino v. Galaza, 183 F.3d 1003, 1006 19 (9th Cir. 1999). But see Artuz v. Bennett, 531 U.S. 4, 8 (2000) (holding that “an 20 application is ‘properly filed’ when its delivery and acceptance [by the appropriate court 21 officer for placement into the record] are in compliance with the applicable laws and 22 rules governing filings.”). However, absent some other basis for tolling, the statute of 23 limitations does run while a federal habeas petition is pending. Duncan v. Walker, 533 24 U.S. 167, 181-82 (2001). 25 Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases provides for summary dismissal 26 of a habeas petition “[i]f it plainly appears from the face of the petition and any exhibits 27 annexed to it that the petitioner is not entitled to relief in the district court . . .” Rule 4, 28 28 U.S.C. foll. § 2254. Here, it appears plain from the Petition that Petitioner is not presently 1 || entitled to federal habeas relief because he has not alleged exhaustion of state court 2 ||remedies. 3 CONCLUSION 4 Based on the foregoing, the Court DISMISSES the Second Amended Petition 5 || without prejudice because Petitioner has failed to allege exhaustion of state judicial 6 remedies. IT IS HEREBY ADJUDGED THAT JUDGMENT BE ENTERED 7 || DISMISSING THE PETITION AND THE ACTION. 8 IT IS SO ORDERED. 9 || Dated: July 9, 2020 / g / 4. ‘4, W/V 10 Larry Alan Burns Chief United States District Judge 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28