John Christopher Brown v. Josie Gastelo

• Court: District Court, C.D. California
• Decided: July 9, 2020
• Docket: 2:20-cv-02051
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL Case No. CV 20-2051-PA (PJW) Date July 9, 2020 Title John Christopher Brown v. Josie Gastelo, Warden

Present: The Honorable PATRICK J. WALSH, U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE Erica Valencia N/A N/A Deputy Clerk Court Reporter / Recorder Tape No. Attorneys Present for Petitioner: Attorneys Present for Respondent: None Present None Present Proceedings: Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss (In Chambers) On March 2, 2020, Petitioner filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, in which he raised four claims of relief. (Petition at 5-6.) On June 2, 2020, Respondent filed a motion to dismiss on the ground that Petitioner did not present Ground Four of the Petition to the California Supreme Court and that, therefore, the claim is unexhausted. In Ground Four, Petitioner claims that the prosecution’s failure to disclose favorable evidence and its presentation of false evidence at trial deprived him of due process. (Petition at 5.) Petitioner acknowledges that he did not raise this claim in his petition for review in the state supreme court (Petition at 3), and the copy of the petition for review that he attached to his federal habeas petition bears this out. (See Petition, Doc. 1-3 at 1-75.) Nor has he filed a habeas corpus petition in state court. To satisfy exhaustion requirements, a petitioner must demonstrate that his claims have been “fairly presented” to the highest state court so that the state court can address them on the merits. See Picard v. Connor, 404 U.S. 270, 275 (1971); see also O’Sullivan v. Boerckel, 526 U.S. 838, 844 (1999) (requiring that state prisoners give state courts a “fair opportunity to act on their claims”). Because Ground Four has not been exhausted, the Petition is a “mixed” petition that is subject to dismissal. Jefferson v. Budge, 419 F.3d 1013, 1015 (9th Cir. 2005) (“[A] mixed petition, i.e., a petition raising both exhausted and unexhausted claims, must be dismissed for failure to completely exhaust available state remedies.”). Consequently, the Court orders Petitioner to make an election CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL Case No. CV 20-2051-PA (PJW) Date July 9, 2020 Title John Christopher Brown v. Josie Gastelo, Warden 1. Petitioner may request a stay and abeyance of the mixed Petition while he exhausts Ground Four in the California Supreme Court. See Rhines v. Weber, 544 U.S. 269, 277 (2005) (holding that district courts have the discretion to stay and hold in abeyance, rather than dismiss, a mixed habeas petition). Such a stay is not automatic, however. This Court can grant a stay only if Petitioner demonstrates “good cause” for the failure to exhaust in state court, that the claims are not plainly meritless, and that he is not using intentionally dilatory litigation tactics. 2. Petitioner may voluntarily dismiss Ground Four of his Petition, and the Court will proceed to the merits of his remaining exhausted claims. If he chooses this option, Petitioner is warned that this Court will likely be foreclosed from ever considering Ground Four in a successive petition. Petitioner has until July 30, 2020, to make an election as to how he wants to proceed on his Petition. If Petitioner chooses option 1--the stay and abeyance–-he must also explain why he did not raise Ground Four in the California Supreme Court. If Petitioner does nothing, the Court will recommend that the Petition be dismissed as a mixed petition. Accordingly, Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss is DENIED without prejudice, pending an election by Petitioner. cc: John Christopher Brown Julie Ann Harris No. BD1909 CAAG - Office of the Attorney General P.O. Box 8101 300 South Spring Street, Suite 1702 San Luis Obispo, CA 93409 Los Angeles, CA 90013 : Initials of Preparer EV S:\PJW\Cases-State Habeas\BROWN, J 2051\New MO_MTD election.wpd