Manuel v. Speer

• Court: District Court, W.D. Washington
• Decided: February 13, 2025
• Docket: 3:25-cv-05055
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 5 AT TACOMA 6 RENE DEWAYNE MANUEL, Case No. 3:25-cv-05055-JCC-TLF 7 Petitioner, v. ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE 8 SCOTT SPEER, 9 Respondent. 10

11 Petitioner Rene Dewayne Manuel a state prisoner who is currently confined at 12 the Stafford Creek Corrections Center in Aberdeen, Washington, pursuant to a 13 judgment and sentence entered in Mason County Superior Court. Dkt. 1-2 at 1. 14 Petitioner presents to the Court for filing a petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28 15 U.S.C. § 2241 in which he challenges the validity of his current custody, asserting that 16 he was denied counsel at a critical stage in violation of the Sixth Amendment. Dkt. 1-2 17 at 6. 18 The Ninth Circuit has held that “28 U.S.C. § 2254 is the exclusive vehicle for a 19 habeas petition by a state prisoner in custody pursuant to a state court judgment[.]” 20 White v. Lambert, 370 F.3d 1002, 1009-10 (9th Cir. 2004), overruled on other grounds 21 by Hayward v. Marshall, 603 F.3d 546 (9th Cir. 2010) (en banc). See also Dominguez v. 22 Kernan, 906 F.3d 1127, 1134-1137 (9th Cir. 2018) (discussing the difference between 23 24 1 cases properly brought under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 as opposed to those properly brought 2 under § 2254). 3 To obtain relief under § 2254, a petitioner must demonstrate that each of his 4 claims for federal habeas relief has been properly exhausted in the state courts. 28

5 U.S.C. § 2254(b)-(c). The exhaustion requirement is a matter of comity, intended to 6 afford the state courts “an initial opportunity to pass upon and correct alleged violations 7 of its prisoners’ federal rights.” Picard v. Connor, 404 U.S. 270, 275 (1971) (internal 8 quotation marks and citations omitted). To provide the state courts with the opportunity 9 to consider his federal claims, a prisoner must “fairly present” his claims to each 10 appropriate state court for review, including a state supreme court with powers of 11 discretionary review. Baldwin v. Reese, 541 U.S. 27, 29 (2004) (citing Duncan v. 12 Henry, 513 U.S. 364, 365 (1995), and O’Sullivan v. Boerckel, 526 U.S. 838, 845 13 (1999)). 14 In this case, Petitioner makes clear that he has not presented the issue raised in

15 his petition to any state appellate court for review. Dkt. 1-2 at 2-7. He states, “this filing 16 constitutes an appeal.” Id. at 2. Petitioner’s claim is therefore unexhausted and not 17 currently eligible for federal habeas review. Accordingly, the Court hereby ORDERS as 18 follows: 19 (1) Petitioner is ordered to SHOW CAUSE, by March 11, 2025, why his 20 petition and this action should not be dismissed for failure to exhaust state court 21 remedies. Failure to timely respond to this Order will result in a recommendation that 22 this action be dismissed. 23

24 1 (2) The Clerk is directed to NOTE this matter on the Court’s motion calendar 2 for March 11, 2025, for review of Petitioner’s response to this Order to Show Cause. 3 (3) The Clerk is directed to send copies of this Order to Petitioner. 4

5 Dated this 13th day of February, 2025. 6 7 8 A

Theresa L. Fricke 9 United States Magistrate Judge

10 11 12 13 14

15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24