Daily v. State of Washington

• Court: District Court, E.D. Washington
• Decided: June 11, 2020
• Docket: 2:20-cv-00173
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 Jun 11, 2020

2 SEAN F. MCAVOY, CLERK

3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 4 BRANDON DAILY, No. 2:20-cv-00173-SMJ 5 Petitioner, ORDER SUMMARILY 6 DISMISSING HABEAS CORPUS v. PETITION 7 STATE OF WASHINGTON and 8 JEFFREY UTTECHT,

9 Respondents.

10 11 Petitioner Brandon Daily, a prisoner at the Coyote Ridge Corrections Center, 12 brings this pro se Petition Under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 for Writ of Habeas Corpus By a 13 Person in State Custody, ECF No. 1. The $5.00 filing fee has been paid. Having 14 reviewed the petition and the record in this matter, the Court is fully informed and 15 dismisses the petition because of several deficiencies briefly summarized below. 16 EXHAUSTION REQUIREMENT 17 Petitioner challenges an unspecified guilty plea in Grant County, 18 Washington. Petitioner does not identify his conviction or his sentence and he 19 indicates that he has not appealed his conviction. ECF No. 1 at 1. He invites the 20 Court to “see case file” but provides no case file. Id. 1 Before a federal court may grant habeas corpus relief to a state prisoner, the 2 prisoner must exhaust the state court remedies available to him. 28 U.S.C.

3 § 2254(b); Baldwin v. Reese, 541 U.S. 27 (2004). Exhaustion generally requires that 4 a prisoner give the state courts an opportunity to act on his or her claims before he 5 or she presents those claims to a federal court. O’Sullivan v. Boerckel, 526 U.S. 838

6 (1999). A petitioner has not exhausted a claim for relief so long as he or she has a 7 right under state law to raise the claim by an available procedure. See id.; 28 U.S.C. 8 § 2254(c). 9 To meet the exhaustion requirement, the petitioner must have “fairly

10 present[ed] his claim in each appropriate state court (including a state supreme court 11 with powers of discretionary review), thereby alerting that court to the federal 12 nature of the claim.” Baldwin, 541 U.S. at 29; see also Duncan v. Henry, 513

13 U.S. 364, 365–66 (1995). A petitioner fairly presents a claim to a state court by 14 describing the factual or legal bases for that claim and by alerting the state court “to 15 the fact that the . . . [petitioner is] asserting claims under the United States 16 Constitution.” Duncan, 513 U.S. at 365–66; see also Tamalini v. Stewart, 249

17 F.3d 895, 898 (9th Cir. 2001). Mere similarity between a claim raised in a state 18 court and a claim in a federal habeas corpus petition is insufficient. Duncan, 513 19 U.S. at 365–66.

20 Furthermore, to fairly present a claim, the petitioner “must give the state 1 courts one full opportunity to resolve any constitutional issues by invoking one 2 complete round of the State’s established appellate review process.”

3 O’Sullivan, 526 U.S. at 845. Once a federal claim has been fairly presented to the 4 state courts, the exhaustion requirement is satisfied. See Picard v. Connor, 404 5 U.S. 270, 275 (1971). It appears from the face of the petition and the attached

6 documents that Petitioner has not exhausted his state court remedies as to each of 7 his grounds for relief. See ECF No. 1. Indeed, Petitioner affirmatively represents 8 that he did not exhaust his state court remedies by appealing his conviction. Id. at 2. 9 GROUNDS FOR FEDERAL HABEAS CORPUS RELIEF

10 Throughout the grounds for relief set out in his petition, Petitioner argues that 11 the State of Washington has no jurisdiction to decide federal constitutional matters. 12 Id. at 5–13, 17–19. It has long been settled that state courts are competent to decide

13 questions arising under the U.S. Constitution. See Baker v. Grice, 169 U.S. 284, 14 291 (1898) (“It is the duty of the state court, as much as it is that of the federal 15 courts, when the question of the validity of a state statute is necessarily involved, as 16 being in alleged violation of any provision of the federal constitution, to decide that

17 question, and to hold the law void if it violate that instrument.”); see also Worldwide 18 Church of God v. McNair, 805 F.2d 888, 891 (9th Cir. 1986) (holding that state 19 courts are as competent as federal courts to decide federal constitutional matters).

20 Petitioner’s arguments to the contrary are meritless. 1 Petitioner also asserts that the Washington State Constitution contradicts the 2 U.S. Constitution regarding the Fifth Amendment right to “presentment or

3 indictment of a Grand Jury.” Id. at 17. He claims “no bill of indictment” was brought 4 against him, rendering his arrest, conviction, and imprisonment illegal. Id. 5 Petitioner seems to argue that because the state courts have defied “federally

6 established procedures and processes for the adjudication of crimes,” only “a court 7 of federal jurisdiction” has jurisdiction over his claims. Id. 8 As the U.S. Supreme Court stated long ago, “Prosecution by information 9 instead of by indictment is provided for by the laws of Washington. This is not a

10 violation of the Federal Constitution.” See Gaines v. Washington, 277 U.S. 81, 86 11 (1928). There is no federal constitutional violation when a prosecuting attorney’s 12 criminal information is substituted for the grand jury’s indictment. See Hurtado v.

13 California, 110 U.S. 516 (1884) (rejecting the claim that an indictment is essential 14 to due process of law and that a state violates the Fourteenth Amendment by 15 prosecuting a defendant with a criminal information). Petitioner’s assertions to the 16 contrary are legally frivolous.

17 Because it plainly appears from the petition and accompanying documents 18 that Petitioner is not entitled to relief in this Court, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED 19 that the petition, ECF No. 1, is DISMISSED pursuant to Rule 4 of the Rules

20 Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts. All pending 1 || motions are DENIED AS MOOT. 2 IT IS SO ORDERED. The Clerk’s Office is directed to enter this Order, 3 || enter judgment, provide copies to Petitioner, and close the file. The Court certifies 4 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), an appeal from this decision could not be

5 ||taken in good faith and there is no basis upon which to issue a certificate of 6 || appealability. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c); Fed. R. App. P. 22(b). A certificate of

7 || appealability is therefore DENIED. 8 DATED this 11" day of June 2020. 9 ccabaaae VADOR MEND&a\A, JR. 10 United States District Juege 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20