Lange v. State of Washington

• Court: District Court, E.D. Washington
• Decided: January 31, 2020
• Docket: 1:19-cv-03268
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 FILED IN THE 3 U.S. DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 4 Jan 31, 2020 5 SEAN F. MCAVOY, CLERK 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 8 9 10 DALLAS JOHN PAUL LANGE, 1:19-cv-03268-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. 1 EXHAUSTION REQUIREMENT 2 Petitioner challenges his 2018 Klickitat County conviction for First Degree 3 Assault. He was sentenced to 147 months’ incarceration. Petitioner indicates that 4 he did not appeal his conviction and sentence. ECF No. 1 at 37. 5 In his grounds for relief, Petitioner argues that the State of Washington has 6 no jurisdiction to decide federal constitutional matters. ECF No. 1 at 40-47. It has 7 long been settled that state courts are competent to decide questions arising under 8 the U.S. Constitution. See Baker v. Grice, 169 U.S. 284, 291 (1898) (“It is the duty 9 of the state court, as much as it is that of the federal courts, when the question of 10 the validity of a state statute is necessarily involved, as being in alleged violation 11 of any provision of the federal constitution, to decide that question, and to hold the 12 law void if it violate that instrument.”); see also Worldwide Church of God v. 13 McNair, 805 F.2d 888, 891 (9th Cir. 1986) (holding that state courts are as 14 competent as federal courts to decide federal constitutional matters). Therefore, 15 Petitioner’s arguments to the contrary lack merit. 16 Additionally, before a federal court may grant habeas relief to a state 17 prisoner, the prisoner must exhaust the state court remedies available to him. 28 18 U.S.C. § 2254(b); Baldwin v. Reese, 541 U.S. 27 (2004). Exhaustion generally 19 requires that a prisoner give the state courts an opportunity to act on his claims 20 before he presents those claims to a federal court. O'Sullivan v. Boerckel, 526 U.S. 21 838 (1999). A petitioner has not exhausted a claim for relief so long as the 22 petitioner has a right under state law to raise the claim by available procedure. See 23 Id.; 28 U.S.C. § 2254(c). 24 To meet the exhaustion requirement, the petitioner must have “fairly 25 present[ed] his claim in each appropriate state court (including a state supreme 26 court with powers of discretionary review), thereby alerting that court to the 27 federal nature of the claim.” Baldwin, 541 U.S. at 29; see also Duncan v. Henry, 28 513 U.S. 364, 365–66 (1995). A petitioner fairly presents a claim to the state court 1 by describing the factual or legal bases for that claim and by alerting the state court 2 “to the fact that the ... [petitioner is] asserting claims under the United States 3 Constitution.” Duncan, 513 U.S. at 365–366; see also Tamalini v. Stewart, 249 4 F.3d 895, 898 (9th Cir. 2001) (same). Mere similarity between a claim raised in 5 state court and a claim in a federal habeas petition is insufficient. Duncan, 513 6 U.S. at 365–366. 7 Furthermore, to fairly present a claim, the petitioner “must give the state 8 courts one full opportunity to resolve any constitutional issues by invoking one 9 complete round of the State's established appellate review process.” O'Sullivan, 10 526 U.S. at 845. Once a federal claim has been fairly presented to the state courts, 11 the exhaustion requirement is satisfied. See Picard v. Connor, 404 U.S. 270, 275 12 (1971). It appears from the face of the Petition and the attached documents that 13 Petitioner has not exhausted his state court remedies as to each of his grounds for 14 relief. Indeed, Petitioner affirmatively represents that he did not exhaust his state 15 court remedies. 16 GROUNDS FOR FEDERAL HABEAS RELIEF 17 Petitioner asserts that the Washington state constitution contradicts the 18 federal constitution regarding the Fifth Amendment right to “presentment or 19 indictment of a Grand Jury.” He claims “no bill of indictment” was brought against 20 him rendering his arrest, conviction and imprisonment illegal. 21 Petitioner seems to argue that because the state courts have defied “federally 22 established procedures and processes for the adjudication of crimes” only “a court 23 of federal jurisdiction” has jurisdictional authority over his claims. His bald 24 assertion that “due process of the law was ignored” is unsupported by his factual 25 allegations. 26 The United States Supreme Court stated long ago: “Prosecution by 27 information instead of by indictment is provided for by the laws of Washington. 28 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. Because it plainly appears from the petition and accompanying documents that Petitioner is not entitledto relief in this Court, IT IS ORDERED the petition, ECF No. 1,1s DISMISSED pursuant to Rule4, Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that all pending Motions are DENIED as moot. IT ISSO 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 1 taken in good faith, and there is no basis upon which to issue a certificate of 12] appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c); Fed. R. App. P. 22(b). A certificate of 13] appealability is therefore DENIED. 1 DATED this 31st day of January 2020. 1 I l # Seeley Ecce ‘

5 Stanley A. Bastian 5 United States District Judge 2 2 2 2 2 2 2