1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 MANUEL ANTHONY CASTILLO, Case No. 1:24-cv-01586-SAB-HC 11 Petitioner, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION RECOMMENDING DISMISSAL OF 12 v. PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS WITHOUT PREJUDICE 13 JEFF MACOMBER, ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT 14 Respondent. TO RANDOMLY ASSIGN DISTRICT JUDGE 15 16 Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas corpus 17 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 18 I. 19 BACKGROUND 20 In 2017, Petitioner was convicted in the Kern County Superior Court and sentenced to an 21 imprisonment term of fifty years to life plus twenty-five years and four months. (ECF No. 1 at 22 1.1) In 2020, the California Court of Appeal, Fifth Appellate District, remanded the matter for the 23 trial court to address various sentencing issues, and the California Supreme Court denied the 24 petition for review. (Id. at 2.) Petitioner also filed a petition for resentencing in the superior 25 court, which denied the petition in 2024. (Id. at 3.) 26 On December 26, 2024, the Court received the instant petition for writ of habeas corpus 27 that raises the following claims for relief: (1) ineffective assistance of trial counsel during the 1 sentencing phase; (2) various sentencing issues; (3) false evidence; and (4) erroneous admission 2 of witness statement, in violation of Confrontation Clause. (ECF No. 1 at 6–9.) 3 The Court ordered Petitioner to show cause why the petition should not be dismissed as 4 untimely and for failure to exhaust state judicial remedies. (ECF No. 6.) Petitioner has filed a 5 response. (ECF No. 7.) 6 II. 7 DISCUSSION 8 Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases requires preliminary review of a 9 habeas petition and allows a district court to dismiss a petition before the respondent is ordered 10 to file a response, if it “plainly appears from the petition and any attached exhibits that the 11 petitioner is not entitled to relief in the district court.” Rule 4, Rules Governing Section 2254 12 Cases in the United States District Courts, 28 U.S.C. foll. § 2254. 13 A. Exhaustion 14 A petitioner in state custody who is proceeding with a petition for writ of habeas corpus 15 must exhaust state judicial remedies. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(1). The exhaustion doctrine is based 16 on comity to the state court and gives the state court the initial opportunity to correct the state’s 17 alleged constitutional deprivations. Coleman v. Thompson, 501 U.S. 722, 731 (1991); Rose v. 18 Lundy, 455 U.S. 509, 518 (1982). A petitioner can satisfy the exhaustion requirement by 19 providing the highest state court with a full and fair opportunity to consider each claim before 20 presenting it to the federal court. O’Sullivan v. Boerckel, 526 U.S. 838, 845 (1999); Duncan v. 21 Henry, 513 U.S. 364, 365 (1995); Picard v. Connor, 404 U.S. 270, 276 (1971). 22 Here, the petition indicates that Grounds One, Three, and Four have not been raised in the 23 California Supreme Court. (ECF No. 1 at 6, 8–9.) In his response, Petitioner states that a state 24 habeas petition was mailed to the Kern County Superior Court in December 2024. (ECF No. 7 at 25 3.) Although Petitioner may have sought relief in the Kern County Superior Court, Petitioner has 26 failed to demonstrate that he presented Grounds One, Three, and Four to the California Supreme 27 Court. As it appears Petitioner has not sought relief in the California Supreme Court, the Court 1 B. “Mixed” Petition 2 “Federal courts may not adjudicate mixed habeas petitions, that is, those containing both 3 exhausted and unexhausted claims.” Henderson v. Johnson, 710 F.3d 872, 873 (9th Cir. 2013). 4 The Court must dismiss without prejudice a mixed petition containing both exhausted and 5 unexhausted claims to give a petitioner an opportunity to exhaust the claims if he can do so. 6 Lundy, 455 U.S. at 522. However, a petitioner may, at his option, withdraw the unexhausted 7 claims and go forward with the exhausted claims. See Anthony v. Cambra, 236 F.3d 568, 574 8 (9th Cir. 2000) (“[D]istrict courts must provide habeas litigants with the opportunity to amend 9 their mixed petitions by striking unexhausted claims as an alternative to suffering dismissal.”). A 10 petitioner may also move to withdraw the entire petition and return to federal court when he has 11 finally exhausted his state court remedies. Additionally, a petitioner may also move to stay and 12 hold in abeyance the petition while he exhausts his claims in state court. See Rhines v. Weber, 13 544 U.S. 269, 277 (2005); Kelly v. Small, 315 F.3d 1063, 1070–71 (9th Cir. 2002). 14 Here, the only exhausted claim appears to be Ground Two, in which Petitioner challenges 15 his judgment based on California Assembly Bill 1540, Senate Bill 1393, Senate Bill 483, and 16 Senate Bill 81. (ECF No. 1 at 7.) By statute, federal courts “shall entertain an application for a 17 writ of habeas corpus in behalf of a person in custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court 18 only on the ground that he is in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the 19 United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a). “[T]he second use of ‘in custody’ in the statute requires 20 literally that the person applying for the writ is contending that he is ‘in custody’ in violation of 21 the Constitution or other federal laws.” Bailey v. Hill, 599 F.3d 976, 979 (9th Cir. 2010) 22 (emphasis added). Whether Petitioner is entitled to relief based on various California state 23 assembly and senate bills is an issue of state law, and errors of state law generally do not warrant 24 federal habeas corpus relief. See Wilson v. Corcoran, 562 U.S. 1, 5 (2010) (per curiam) (“[I]t is 25 only noncompliance with federal law that renders a State’s criminal judgment susceptible to 26 collateral attack in the federal courts.”); Estelle v. McGuire, 502 U.S. 62, 67–68 (1991) (“We 27 have stated many times that ‘federal habeas corpus relief does not lie for errors of state law.’ 1 | court determinations on state-law questions.” (citations omitted)). Therefore, it would not be 2 | appropriate to allow Petitioner to withdraw the unexhausted claims and go forward with Ground 3 | Two, which is not cognizable in federal habeas corpus. 4 Il. 5 RECOMMENDATION & ORDER 6 Based on the foregoing, the Court HEREBY RECOMMENDS that the petition for writ of 7 | habeas corpus be DISMISSED without prejudice for failure to exhaust state judicial remedies. 8 Further, the Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to randomly assign this action to a District 9 | Judge. 10 This Findings and Recommendation is submitted to the assigned United States District 11 | Court Judge, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 MANUEL ANTHONY CASTILLO, Case No. 1:24-cv-01586-SAB-HC 11 Petitioner, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION RECOMMENDING DISMISSAL OF 12 v. PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS WITHOUT PREJUDICE 13 JEFF MACOMBER, ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT 14 Respondent. TO RANDOMLY ASSIGN DISTRICT JUDGE 15 16 Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas corpus 17 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 18 I. 19 BACKGROUND 20 In 2017, Petitioner was convicted in the Kern County Superior Court and sentenced to an 21 imprisonment term of fifty years to life plus twenty-five years and four months. (ECF No. 1 at 22 1.1) In 2020, the California Court of Appeal, Fifth Appellate District, remanded the matter for the 23 trial court to address various sentencing issues, and the California Supreme Court denied the 24 petition for review. (Id. at 2.) Petitioner also filed a petition for resentencing in the superior 25 court, which denied the petition in 2024. (Id. at 3.) 26 On December 26, 2024, the Court received the instant petition for writ of habeas corpus 27 that raises the following claims for relief: (1) ineffective assistance of trial counsel during the 1 sentencing phase; (2) various sentencing issues; (3) false evidence; and (4) erroneous admission 2 of witness statement, in violation of Confrontation Clause. (ECF No. 1 at 6–9.) 3 The Court ordered Petitioner to show cause why the petition should not be dismissed as 4 untimely and for failure to exhaust state judicial remedies. (ECF No. 6.) Petitioner has filed a 5 response. (ECF No. 7.) 6 II. 7 DISCUSSION 8 Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases requires preliminary review of a 9 habeas petition and allows a district court to dismiss a petition before the respondent is ordered 10 to file a response, if it “plainly appears from the petition and any attached exhibits that the 11 petitioner is not entitled to relief in the district court.” Rule 4, Rules Governing Section 2254 12 Cases in the United States District Courts, 28 U.S.C. foll. § 2254. 13 A. Exhaustion 14 A petitioner in state custody who is proceeding with a petition for writ of habeas corpus 15 must exhaust state judicial remedies. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(1). The exhaustion doctrine is based 16 on comity to the state court and gives the state court the initial opportunity to correct the state’s 17 alleged constitutional deprivations. Coleman v. Thompson, 501 U.S. 722, 731 (1991); Rose v. 18 Lundy, 455 U.S. 509, 518 (1982). A petitioner can satisfy the exhaustion requirement by 19 providing the highest state court with a full and fair opportunity to consider each claim before 20 presenting it to the federal court. O’Sullivan v. Boerckel, 526 U.S. 838, 845 (1999); Duncan v. 21 Henry, 513 U.S. 364, 365 (1995); Picard v. Connor, 404 U.S. 270, 276 (1971). 22 Here, the petition indicates that Grounds One, Three, and Four have not been raised in the 23 California Supreme Court. (ECF No. 1 at 6, 8–9.) In his response, Petitioner states that a state 24 habeas petition was mailed to the Kern County Superior Court in December 2024. (ECF No. 7 at 25 3.) Although Petitioner may have sought relief in the Kern County Superior Court, Petitioner has 26 failed to demonstrate that he presented Grounds One, Three, and Four to the California Supreme 27 Court. As it appears Petitioner has not sought relief in the California Supreme Court, the Court 1 B. “Mixed” Petition 2 “Federal courts may not adjudicate mixed habeas petitions, that is, those containing both 3 exhausted and unexhausted claims.” Henderson v. Johnson, 710 F.3d 872, 873 (9th Cir. 2013). 4 The Court must dismiss without prejudice a mixed petition containing both exhausted and 5 unexhausted claims to give a petitioner an opportunity to exhaust the claims if he can do so. 6 Lundy, 455 U.S. at 522. However, a petitioner may, at his option, withdraw the unexhausted 7 claims and go forward with the exhausted claims. See Anthony v. Cambra, 236 F.3d 568, 574 8 (9th Cir. 2000) (“[D]istrict courts must provide habeas litigants with the opportunity to amend 9 their mixed petitions by striking unexhausted claims as an alternative to suffering dismissal.”). A 10 petitioner may also move to withdraw the entire petition and return to federal court when he has 11 finally exhausted his state court remedies. Additionally, a petitioner may also move to stay and 12 hold in abeyance the petition while he exhausts his claims in state court. See Rhines v. Weber, 13 544 U.S. 269, 277 (2005); Kelly v. Small, 315 F.3d 1063, 1070–71 (9th Cir. 2002). 14 Here, the only exhausted claim appears to be Ground Two, in which Petitioner challenges 15 his judgment based on California Assembly Bill 1540, Senate Bill 1393, Senate Bill 483, and 16 Senate Bill 81. (ECF No. 1 at 7.) By statute, federal courts “shall entertain an application for a 17 writ of habeas corpus in behalf of a person in custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court 18 only on the ground that he is in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the 19 United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a). “[T]he second use of ‘in custody’ in the statute requires 20 literally that the person applying for the writ is contending that he is ‘in custody’ in violation of 21 the Constitution or other federal laws.” Bailey v. Hill, 599 F.3d 976, 979 (9th Cir. 2010) 22 (emphasis added). Whether Petitioner is entitled to relief based on various California state 23 assembly and senate bills is an issue of state law, and errors of state law generally do not warrant 24 federal habeas corpus relief. See Wilson v. Corcoran, 562 U.S. 1, 5 (2010) (per curiam) (“[I]t is 25 only noncompliance with federal law that renders a State’s criminal judgment susceptible to 26 collateral attack in the federal courts.”); Estelle v. McGuire, 502 U.S. 62, 67–68 (1991) (“We 27 have stated many times that ‘federal habeas corpus relief does not lie for errors of state law.’ 1 | court determinations on state-law questions.” (citations omitted)). Therefore, it would not be 2 | appropriate to allow Petitioner to withdraw the unexhausted claims and go forward with Ground 3 | Two, which is not cognizable in federal habeas corpus. 4 Il. 5 RECOMMENDATION & ORDER 6 Based on the foregoing, the Court HEREBY RECOMMENDS that the petition for writ of 7 | habeas corpus be DISMISSED without prejudice for failure to exhaust state judicial remedies. 8 Further, the Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to randomly assign this action to a District 9 | Judge. 10 This Findings and Recommendation is submitted to the assigned United States District 11 | Court Judge, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(B) and Rule 304 of the Local 12 | Rules of Practice for the United States District Court, Eastern District of California. Within 13 | THIRTY (30) days after service of the Findings and Recommendation, Petitioner may file 14 | written objections with the Court, limited to fifteen (15) pages in length, including any 15 | exhibits. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and 16 | Recommendation.” The assigned District Judge will then review the Magistrate Judge’s ruling 17 | pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). The parties are advised that failure to file objections within 18 | the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Wilkerson 19 | Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 839 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th 20 | Cir. 1991)). 21 IT IS SO ORDERED. OF. nf ee 23 | Dated: _ May 15, 2025 " STANLEY A. BOONE 24 United States Magistrate Judge 25 26 27 28