Hair v. State of Washington

• Court: District Court, E.D. Washington
• Decided: May 15, 2020
• Docket: 2:20-cv-00054
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 FILED IN THE EASTERU N. S D. I SD TI RS IT CR TI C OT F C WO AU SR HT I NGTON 2 May 15, 2020

3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SEAN F. MCAVOY, CLERK EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 4 JONATHAN C. HAIR, No. 2:20-cv-00054-SMJ 5 Petitioner, ORDER SUMMARILY 6 DISMISSING HABEAS CORPUS v. PETITION 7 STATE OF WASHINGTON, 8 Respondent. 9

10 Petitioner Jonathan C. Hair, a prisoner at the Coyote Ridge Corrections 11 Center, brings this pro se Petition Under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 for Writ of Habeas 12 Corpus By a Person in State Custody, ECF No. 1. The $5.00 filing fee has been 13 paid. Having reviewed the petition and the record in this matter, the Court dismisses 14 the petition because of several deficiencies briefly summarized below. 15 PROPER RESPONDENT 16 First, the petition fails to name a proper party as a respondent. The proper 17 respondent in a federal petition seeking habeas corpus relief is the person having 18 custody of the petitioner. Rumsfeld v. Padilla, 542 U.S. 426 (2004); Stanley v. Cal. 19 Supreme Court, 21 F.3d 359, 360 (9th Cir. 1994). If the petitioner is incarcerated, 20 the proper respondent is generally the warden of the institution where the petitioner 1 is incarcerated. See Ortiz-Sandoval v. Gomez, 81 F.3d 891, 893 (9th Cir. 1996). 2 Failure to name a proper respondent deprives federal courts of personal jurisdiction.

3 See Stanley, 21 F.3d at 360.Though Petitioner could conceivably remedy this issue, 4 in light of the additional deficiencies discussed below, the Court concludes 5 amendment would be futile.

6 EXHAUSTION REQUIREMENT 7 Petitioner challenges an unspecified guilty plea in Spokane County. 8 Petitioner does not identify his conviction or his sentence and he indicates that he 9 has not appealed his conviction. ECF No. 1 at 2. He invites the Court to “see case

10 file” but provides no case file. Id. 11 Before a federal court may grant habeas corpus relief to a state prisoner, the 12 prisoner must exhaust the state court remedies available to him. 28 U.S.C.

13 § 2254(b); Baldwin v. Reese, 541 U.S. 27 (2004). Exhaustion generally requires that 14 a prisoner give the state courts an opportunity to act on his or her claims before he 15 or she presents those claims to a federal court. O’Sullivan v. Boerckel, 526 U.S. 838 16 (1999). A petitioner has not exhausted a claim for relief so long as he or she has a

17 right under state law to raise the claim by an available procedure. See id.; 28 U.S.C. 18 § 2254(c). 19 To meet the exhaustion requirement, the petitioner must have “fairly

20 present[ed] his claim in each appropriate state court (including a state supreme court 1 with powers of discretionary review), thereby alerting that court to the federal 2 nature of the claim.” Baldwin, 541 U.S. at 29; see also Duncan v. Henry, 513

3 U.S. 364, 365–66 (1995). A petitioner fairly presents a claim to a state court by 4 describing the factual or legal bases for that claim and by alerting the state court “to 5 the fact that the . . . [petitioner is] asserting claims under the United States

6 Constitution.” Duncan, 513 U.S. at 365–66; see also Tamalini v. Stewart, 249 7 F.3d 895, 898 (9th Cir. 2001). Mere similarity between a claim raised in a state 8 court and a claim in a federal habeas corpus petition is insufficient. Duncan, 513 9 U.S. at 365–66.

10 Furthermore, to fairly present a claim, the petitioner “must give the state 11 courts one full opportunity to resolve any constitutional issues by invoking one 12 complete round of the State’s established appellate review process.”

13 O’Sullivan, 526 U.S. at 845. Once a federal claim has been fairly presented to the 14 state courts, the exhaustion requirement is satisfied. See Picard v. Connor, 404 15 U.S. 270, 275 (1971). It appears from the face of the petition and the attached 16 documents that Petitioner has not exhausted his state court remedies as to each of

17 his grounds for relief. See ECF No. 1. Indeed, Petitioner affirmatively represents 18 that he did not exhaust his state court remedies by appealing his conviction. Id. at 2. 19 GROUNDS FOR FEDERAL HABEAS CORPUS RELIEF

20 Throughout the grounds for relief set out in his petition, Petitioner argues that 1 the State of Washington has no jurisdiction to decide federal constitutional matters. 2 Id. at 5–12. It has long been settled that state courts are competent to decide

3 questions arising under the U.S. Constitution. See Baker v. Grice, 169 U.S. 284, 4 291 (1898) (“It is the duty of the state court, as much as it is that of the federal 5 courts, when the question of the validity of a state statute is necessarily involved, as

6 being in alleged violation of any provision of the federal constitution, to decide that 7 question, and to hold the law void if it violate that instrument.”); see also Worldwide 8 Church of God v. McNair, 805 F.2d 888, 891 (9th Cir. 1986) (holding that state 9 courts are as competent as federal courts to decide federal constitutional matters).

10 Petitioner’s arguments to the contrary are meritless. 11 Petitioner also asserts that the Washington State Constitution contradicts the 12 U.S. Constitution regarding the Fifth Amendment right to “presentment or

13 indictment of a Grand Jury.” Id. at 5. He claims “no bill of indictment” was brought 14 against him, rendering his arrest, conviction, and imprisonment illegal. Id. 15 Petitioner seems to argue that because the state courts have defied “federally 16 established procedures and processes for the adjudication of crimes,” only “a court

17 of federal jurisdiction” has jurisdiction over his claims. Id. at 8. 18 As the U.S. Supreme Court stated long ago, “Prosecution by information 19 instead of by indictment is provided for by the laws of Washington. This is not a

20 violation of the Federal Constitution.” See Gaines v. Washington, 277 U.S. 81, 86 1 ||(1928). There is no federal constitutional violation when a prosecuting attorney’s 2 |{criminal information is substituted for the grand jury’s indictment. See Hurtado v. 3 || California, 110 U.S. 516 (1884) (rejecting the claim that an indictment is essential 4 ||to due process of law and that a state violates the Fourteenth Amendment by 5 || prosecuting a defendant with a criminal information). Petitioner’s assertions to the 6 || contrary are legally frivolous.

7 Because it plainly appears from the petition and accompanying documents 8 || that Petitioner is not entitled to relief in this Court, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED 9 the petition, ECF No. 1, is DISMISSED pursuant to Rule 4 of the Rules 10 |}Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts. All pending 11 |}motions are DENIED AS MOOT. 12 IT IS SO ORDERED. The Clerk’s Office is directed to enter this Order, 13 || enter judgment, provide copies to Petitioner, and close the file. The Court certifies 14 || that, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), an appeal from this decision could not be 15 ||taken in good faith and there is no basis upon which to issue a certificate of 16 appealability. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c); Fed. R. App. P. 22(b). A certificate of

17 || appealability is therefore DENIED. 18 DATED this 15th day of May 2020. 19 (nai rere SALVADOR MENDCy2i, JR. 20 United States District Jude