Fuller v. Bennett

• Court: District Court, W.D. Washington
• Decided: July 30, 2024
• Docket: 2:24-cv-00983
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 5 AT TACOMA 6 JESSE THOMAS FULLER, Case No. 2:24-cv-983-TL-TLF 7 Petitioner, v. ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE 8 JASON BENNETT , 9 Respondent. 10

11 Petitioner Jesse Thomas Fuller is a state prisoner who is currently confined at 12 the Stafford Creek Corrections Center in Aberdeen, Washington, pursuant to a 13 judgment and sentence entered in King County Superior Court. Dkt. 1-1 at 1. Petitioner 14 presents to the Court for filing a petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 15 2241 asserting that his King County Superior Court’s sentence is invalid because former 16 RCW 9.94A.507 is unconstitutional on its face and violates his Sixth Amendment right to 17 a jury trial. Id. at 6. He seeks to have this Court review whether state law violates 18 federal law and to “issue an unconditional writ releasing [him] from custody.” Id. at 7; 19 see also, Memorandum, Dkt. 1-2, at 2. 20 Petitioner cites Castro v. United States, 540 U.S. 375 (2003) and objects to 21 having this Court review his case under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Id. at 1. The Ninth Circuit has 22 held that “28 U.S.C. § 2254 is the exclusive vehicle for a habeas petition by a state 23 prisoner in custody pursuant to a state court judgment[.]” White v. Lambert, 370 F.3d 24 1 1002, 1009-10 (9th Cir. 2004), overruled on other grounds by Hayward v. Marshall, 603 2 F.3d 546 (9th Cir. 2010) (en banc). The Castro holding, cited by petitioner, does not 3 apply in this situation because it was related to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 and whether the 4 federal district court improperly applied the successive petition rule. Under White v.

5 Lambert, the petition for writ of habeas corpus in this case is properly reviewed under § 6 2254. See Dominguez v. Kernan, 906 F.3d 1127, 1134-1137 (9th Cir. 2018) 7 (discussing the difference between cases properly brought under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 as 8 opposed to those properly brought under § 2254). 9 To obtain relief under § 2254, a petitioner must demonstrate that each of his 10 claims for federal habeas relief has been properly exhausted in the state courts. 28 11 U.S.C. § 2254(b)-(c). The exhaustion requirement is a matter of comity, intended to 12 afford the state courts “an initial opportunity to pass upon and correct alleged violations 13 of its prisoners’ federal rights.” Picard v. Connor, 404 U.S. 270, 275 (1971) (internal 14 quotation marks and citations omitted). In order to provide the state courts with the

15 requisite “opportunity” to consider his federal claims, a prisoner must “fairly present” his 16 claims to each appropriate state court for review, including a state supreme court with 17 powers of discretionary review. Baldwin v. Reese, 541 U.S. 27, 29 (2004) (citing 18 Duncan v. Henry, 513 U.S. 364, 365 (1995), and O’Sullivan v. Boerckel, 526 U.S. 838, 19 845 (1999)). 20 In this case, Petitioner makes clear that he has not presented the issue raised in 21 his petition to any state appellate court for review. Dkt. 1-1 at 2-7. Petitioner’s claim is 22 therefore unexhausted and not currently eligible for federal habeas review. Accordingly, 23 the Court hereby ORDERS as follows:

24 1 (1) Petitioner shall SHOW CAUSE, by August 15, 2024, why his petition and 2 this action should not be dismissed for failure to exhaust state court remedies. Failure 3 to timely respond to this Order will result in a recommendation that this action be 4 dismissed.

5 (2) The Clerk is directed to NOTE this matter on the Court’s motion calendar 6 for August 15, 2024, for review of Petitioner’s response to this Order to Show Cause. 7 (3) The Clerk is directed to send copies of this Order to Petitioner. 8 9 Dated this 30th day of July, 2024. 10 11 12 A

Theresa L. Fricke 13 United States Magistrate Judge

14 15 16 17 18

19 20 21 22 23 24