Hall v. State of Washington

• Court: District Court, E.D. Washington
• Decided: September 21, 2020
• Docket: 2:20-cv-00263
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 FILED IN THE 3 EASTERU N. S D. I SD TI RS IT CR TI C OT F C WO AU SR HT I NGTON Sep 21, 2020 4 5 SEAN F. MCAVOY, CLERK 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 8 9 10 CHRISTOPHER J. HALL, NO. 2:20-CV-00263-SAB 11 Petitioner, 12 v. ORDER SUMMARILY 13 DISMISSING HABEAS 14 STATE OF WASHINGTON, PETITION 15 Respondent. 16 17 Petitioner, a prisoner at the Coyote Ridge Corrections Center, brings this pro 18 se Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person in State Custody pursuant to 28 19 U.S.C. § 2254. The $5.00 filing fee has been paid. 20 PROPER RESPONDENT 21 An initial defect with the Petition is that it fails to name a proper party as a 22 respondent. The proper respondent in a federal petition seeking habeas corpus 23 relief is the person having custody of the petitioner. Rumsfeld v. Padilla, 542 U.S. 24 426 (2004); Stanley v. Cal. Supreme Court, 21 F.3d 359, 360 (9th Cir. 1994). If the 25 petitioner is incarcerated, the proper respondent is generally the warden of the 26 institution where the petitioner is incarcerated. See Ortiz-Sandoval v. Gomez, 81 27 F.3d 891 (9th Cir. 1996). Failure to name a proper respondent deprives federal 28 courts of personal jurisdiction. See Stanley, 21 F.3d at 360. While Petitioner could 1 conceivably remedy this issue, the Court finds the additional deficiencies discussed 2 below would make amendment futile. 3 EXHAUSTION REQUIREMENT 4 Petitioner challenges his 2007 Spokane County plea of guilty to Second 5 Degree Murder. He was sentenced to 340 months’ incarceration. Petitioner 6 indicates that he did not appeal his conviction and sentence. ECF No. 1 at 2. 7 In his grounds for relief, Petitioner argues that the State of Washington has 8 no jurisdiction to decide federal constitutional matters. ECF No. 1 at 5-12. It has 9 long been settled that state courts are competent to decide questions arising under 10 the U.S. Constitution. See Baker v. Grice, 169 U.S. 284, 291 (1898) (“It is the duty 11 of the state court, as much as it is that of the federal courts, when the question of 12 the validity of a state statute is necessarily involved, as being in alleged violation 13 of any provision of the federal constitution, to decide that question, and to hold the 14 law void if it violate that instrument.”); see also Worldwide Church of God v. 15 McNair, 805 F.2d 888, 891 (9th Cir. 1986) (holding that state courts are as 16 competent as federal courts to decide federal constitutional matters). Therefore, 17 Petitioner’s arguments to the contrary lack merit. 18 Additionally, before a federal court may grant habeas relief to a state 19 prisoner, the prisoner must exhaust the state court remedies available to him. 28 20 U.S.C. § 2254(b); Baldwin v. Reese, 541 U.S. 27 (2004). Exhaustion generally 21 requires that a prisoner give the state courts an opportunity to act on his claims 22 before he presents those claims to a federal court. O'Sullivan v. Boerckel, 526 U.S. 23 838 (1999). A petitioner has not exhausted a claim for relief so long as the 24 petitioner has a right under state law to raise the claim by available procedure. See 25 Id.; 28 U.S.C. § 2254(c). 26 To meet the exhaustion requirement, the petitioner must have “fairly 27 present[ed] his claim in each appropriate state court (including a state supreme 28 court with powers of discretionary review), thereby alerting that court to the 1 federal nature of the claim.” Baldwin, 541 U.S. at 29; see also Duncan v. Henry, 2 513 U.S. 364, 365–66 (1995). A petitioner fairly presents a claim to the state court 3 by describing the factual or legal bases for that claim and by alerting the state court 4 “to the fact that the ... [petitioner is] asserting claims under the United States 5 Constitution.” Duncan, 513 U.S. at 365–366; see also Tamalini v. Stewart, 249 6 F.3d 895, 898 (9th Cir. 2001) (same). Mere similarity between a claim raised in 7 state court and a claim in a federal habeas petition is insufficient. Duncan, 513 8 U.S. at 365–66. 9 Furthermore, to fairly present a claim, the petitioner “must give the state 10 courts one full opportunity to resolve any constitutional issues by invoking one 11 complete round of the State's established appellate review process.” O'Sullivan, 12 526 U.S. at 845. Once a federal claim has been fairly presented to the state courts, 13 the exhaustion requirement is satisfied. See Picard v. Connor, 404 U.S. 270, 275 14 (1971). It appears from the face of the Petition and subsequent documents that 15 Petitioner has not exhausted his state court remedies as to each of his grounds for 16 relief. Indeed, Petitioner affirmatively represents that he did not exhaust his state 17 court remedies. 18 GROUNDS FOR FEDERAL HABEAS RELIEF 19 Petitioner asserts that the Washington state constitution contradicts the 20 federal constitution regarding the Fifth Amendment right to “presentment or 21 indictment of a Grand Jury.” ECF No. 1 at 5. He claims “no bill of indictment” was 22 brought against him rendering his arrest, conviction, and imprisonment illegal. Id. 23 Petitioner seems to argue that because the state courts have defied “federally 24 established procedures and processes for the adjudication of crimes” only “a court 25 of federal jurisdiction” has jurisdictional authority over his claims. Id. at 10. His 26 bald assertion that “due process of the law was ignored” is unsupported by his 27 factual allegations. 28 The United States Supreme Court stated long ago: “Prosecution by 1|| information instead of by indictment is provided for by the laws of Washington. This is not a violation of the Federal Constitution.” See Gaines v. Washington, 277 U.S. 81, 86 (1928). Consequently, Petitioner’s assertions to the contrary presented in his four grounds for federal habeas relief are legally frivolous. 5 Because it plainly appears from the petition and accompanying documents that Petitioner is not entitled to relief in this Court, IT IS ORDERED the petition, 7\| ECF No. 1, is DISMISSED pursuant to Rule 4, Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that all pending Motions, if any, are DENIED as moot. 1 IT IS SO ORDERED. The Clerk of Court is directed to enter this Order, enter judgment, provide copies to Petitioner, and close the file. The Court certifies that pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), an appeal from this decision could not be taken in good faith, and there is no basis upon which to issue a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c); Fed. R. App. P. 22(b). A certificate of 15|| appealability is therefore DENIED. DATED this 21st day of September 2020. 17 18 19 ‘ Suey Ecc thar 71 Stanley A. Bastian 2 Chief United States District Judge 23 2 25 2 27 28