Knox v. State of Washington

• Court: District Court, E.D. Washington
• Decided: October 28, 2020
• Docket: 2:20-cv-00373
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2

3 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 6

7 LARRY VICTOR KNOX, NO: 2:20-CV-0373-TOR 8 Petitioner, ORDER SUMMARILY DISMISSING 9 v. HABEAS PETITION

10 STATE OF WASHINGTON,

11 Respondent.

13 Petitioner, a prisoner at the Coyote Ridge Corrections Center, brings this pro 14 se Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person in State Custody pursuant to 28 15 U.S.C. § 2254. The $5.00 filing fee has been paid. 16 PROPER RESPONDENT 17 An initial defect with the Petition is that it fails to name a proper party as a 18 respondent. The proper respondent in a federal petition seeking habeas corpus relief 19 is the person having custody of the petitioner. Rumsfeld v. Padilla, 542 U.S. 426 20 (2004); Stanley v. Cal. Supreme Court, 21 F.3d 359, 360 (9th Cir. 1994). If the 1 petitioner is incarcerated, the proper respondent is generally the warden of the 2 institution where the petitioner is incarcerated. See Ortiz-Sandoval v. Gomez, 81 F.3d

3 891 (9th Cir. 1996). Failure to name a proper respondent deprives federal courts of 4 personal jurisdiction. See Stanley, 21 F.3d at 360. 5 EXHAUSTION REQUIREMENT

6 Petitioner challenges a 1999 Spokane County conviction child rape. He was 7 sentenced to life without parole. He indicates that his conviction and sentence were 8 affirmed on direct appeal in 2001. ECF No. 1 at 3. He did not seek review in the 9 Washington State Supreme Court. Id.

10 In his grounds for relief, Petitioner argues that the State of Washington has no 11 jurisdiction to decide federal constitutional matters. ECF No. 1 at 6-13. It has long 12 been settled that state courts are competent to decide questions arising under the U.S.

13 Constitution. See Baker v. Grice, 169 U.S. 284, 291 (1898) (“It is the duty of the 14 state court, as much as it is that of the federal courts, when the question of the validity 15 of a state statute is necessarily involved, as being in alleged violation of any 16 provision of the federal constitution, to decide that question, and to hold the law void

17 if it violate that instrument.”); see also Worldwide Church of God v. McNair, 805 18 F.2d 888, 891 (9th Cir. 1986) (holding that state courts are as competent as federal 19 courts to decide federal constitutional matters). Therefore, Petitioner’s arguments

20 to the contrary lack merit. 1 Additionally, before a federal court may grant habeas relief to a state prisoner, 2 the prisoner must exhaust the state court remedies available to him. 28 U.S.C.

3 § 2254(b); Baldwin v. Reese, 541 U.S. 27 (2004). Exhaustion generally requires that 4 a prisoner give the state courts an opportunity to act on his claims before he presents 5 those claims to a federal court. O’Sullivan v. Boerckel, 526 U.S. 838 (1999). A

6 petitioner has not exhausted a claim for relief so long as the petitioner has a right 7 under state law to raise the claim by available procedure. See id.; 28 U.S.C. 8 § 2254(c). 9 To meet the exhaustion requirement, the petitioner must have “’fairly

10 present[ed]’ his claim in each appropriate state court (including a state supreme court 11 with powers of discretionary review), thereby alerting that court to the federal nature 12 of the claim.” Baldwin, 541 U.S. at 29; see also Duncan v. Henry, 513 U.S. 364,

13 365–66 (1995). A petitioner fairly presents a claim to the state court by describing 14 the factual or legal bases for that claim and by alerting the state court “to the fact 15 that the ... [petitioner is] asserting claims under the United States Constitution.” 16 Duncan, 513 U.S. at 365–366; see also Tamalini v. Stewart, 249 F.3d 895, 898 (9th

17 Cir. 2001) (same). Mere similarity between a claim raised in state court and a claim 18 in a federal habeas petition is insufficient. Duncan, 513 U.S. at 365–366. 19 Furthermore, to fairly present a claim, the petitioner “must give the state

20 courts one full opportunity to resolve any constitutional issues by invoking one 1 complete round of the State’s established appellate review process.” O’Sullivan, 2 526 U.S. at 845. Once a federal claim has been fairly presented to the state courts,

3 the exhaustion requirement is satisfied. See Picard v. Connor, 404 U.S. 270, 275 4 (1971). Petitioner affirmatively represents that he did not fully exhaust his state 5 court remedies. ECF No. 1 at 3.

6 GROUNDS FOR FEDERAL HABEAS RELIEF 7 Petitioner asserts that the Washington state constitution contradicts the federal 8 constitution regarding the Fifth Amendment right to “presentment or indictment of 9 a Grand Jury.” He claims “no bill of indictment” was brought against him rendering

10 his arrest, conviction and imprisonment illegal. 11 Petitioner seems to argue that because the state courts have defied “federally 12 established procedures and processes for the adjudication of crimes” only “a court

13 of federal jurisdiction” has jurisdictional authority over his claims. His bald 14 assertion that “due process of the law was ignored” is unsupported by his factual 15 allegations. 16 The United States Supreme Court stated long ago: “Prosecution by

17 information instead of by indictment is provided for by the laws of Washington. 18 This is not a violation of the Federal Constitution.” See Gaines v. State of 19 Washington, 277 U.S. 81, 86 (1928). There is no federal constitutional violation

20 when a prosecuting attorney’s criminal information is substituted for the grand jury’s indictment. See Hurtado y. People of State of California, 110 U.S. 516 (1884) 2|| (rejecting the claim that an indictment is essential to due process of law and that a 3|| state violates the Fourteenth Amendment by prosecuting a defendant with a criminal 4|| information). Consequently, Petitioner’s assertions to the contrary presented in his four grounds for federal habeas relief are legally frivolous. 6 Because it plainly appears from the petition and the attached exhibits that Petitioner is not entitled to relief in this Court, IT IS ORDERED the petition, ECF 8|| No. 1, is DISMISSED pursuant to Rule 4, Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED all pending motions are denied as moot. 11 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 14]| 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 appealability is therefore DENIED. 17 DATED October 28, 2020. is CO, 0%; 19 Aad] — uss. RICE > United States District Judge 20