THE DISTRICT COURT OF GUAM
BRIAN JASON MARTINEZ, aka CIVIL CASE NO. 24-00017 BRENDA JOYCE MARTINEZ, Petitioner, DECISION AND ORDER GRANTING APPLICATION TO WAIVE FEES vs. (ECF NO. 7) AND DISMISSING WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS (ECF NO. 1) VERNON PEREZ, Respondent.
This matter is before the court on Petitioner Brian Jason Martinez’s Writ of Habeas Corpus (the “Petition”), ECF No. 1, and Application to Proceed in District Court Without Prepaying Fees or Costs (the “Application to Waive Fees”), ECF No. 7. For the reasons stated below, the court GRANTS the Application to Waive Fees and DISMISSES the Petition without prejudice. I. Background1 Petitioner filed the instant habeas petition on August 6, 2024, alleging that he is incarcerated at the Guam Department of Corrections despite Constitutional violations arising out
1 Page citations throughout this Decision and Order refer to CM/ECF-generated page numbers. of his case in the Superior Court of Guam (Case No. CF0278-24).2 See Pet. at 1-2, ECF No. 1. The allegations begin “on or around April 29, 2024,” when Petitioner was arrested. Id. Petitioner first claims that the duration of his pre-trial confinement constitutes a “violation of a due process of law,” and that he “was taken to trial despite the Constitutional violation.” Id. at 2-3. The remaining allegations are difficult to discern, but Petitioner appears to allege separate issues related to a document being “not dated not signed,” a due process violation for “not [being] afforded a fair speedy trial,” and ineffective assistance of counsel. Id. at 3-4. However, these allegations are unsupported by additional facts. See id. Petitioner ultimately requests “to file an ethics complaint against appointment of counsel due to negligence and misrepresentation,” and
for the “dismissal and expungement of CF0278-24 as well as the immediate release from confinement.” Id. at 4-5. Also on August 6, 2024, the court informed Petitioner of his failure to pay the filing fee and provided a deadline of September 5, 2024, to either make payment or file an application to proceed without prepaying fees or costs. See Letter, ECF No. 3. Petitioner initially failed to respond, but after the court issued an Order to Show Cause on September 19, 2024, Petitioner filed the instant Application to Waive Fees. See Order, ECF No. 5; Appl., ECF No. 7. II. Application to Waive Fees Petitioner has applied to proceed without prepaying fees or costs. Appl., ECF No. 7. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1), a court may authorize a person to commence a civil action
without prepaying the required filing fee, provided that the person “submits an affidavit [stating] . . . that the person is unable to pay such fees or give security therefor.”
2 The court notes that Petitioner signed and dated the Petition July 11, 2024. Pet. at 5, ECF No. 1. The court has reviewed Petitioner’s Application to Waive Fees and finds that he has sufficiently shown that he is unable to pay the fees or give the security required to commence this action. At the time of filing, Petitioner indicated that he was incarcerated in the Guam Department of Corrections and that he has no income or deposits in a checking or savings account. See Appl. at 6-7, ECF No. 7. Petitioner also indicated that he has no expenses or other financial obligations. Id. at 7. Although Petitioner filed a Consent to the Release of Trust Account Information, it does not appear that the form was completed by an authorized official. See id. at 3-4, 8-9. Nonetheless, based on Petitioner’s representations about his financial circumstances, the court finds that he does not have the means to pay the full or a partial filing
fee in this case. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(a)(1), (b). Accordingly, the Application to Waive Fees is III. The Petition A. Jurisdiction The court has jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331. The Petition is brought under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 and claims a “violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.” See Pet. at 2-5, ECF No. 1. B. Standard of Review When a petitioner proceeds in forma pauperis under 28 U.S.C. § 1915, the court must screen the lawsuit to determine whether the action is “frivolous or malicious,” “fails to state a
claim upon which relief may be granted,” or “seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i)-(iii); Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1126-27 (9th Cir. 2000). Furthermore, when a habeas petition is filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, the court must summarily dismiss the case “if it plainly appears from the petition and any attached exhibits that the petitioner is not entitled to relief in district court.” Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases, R. 4, 28 U.S.C. foll. § 2254 [hereinafter “Section 2254 Rules”]. Habeas petitions brought under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 must “(1) specify all the grounds for relief available to the petitioner; (2) state the facts supporting each ground; and (3) state the relief requested.” Section 2254 Rules, R. 2(c)(1)-(3); cf. Mayle v. Felix, 545 U.S. 644, 648-49, 654-56 (2005) (discussing heightened pleading rules for habeas petitions). However, “exhaustion of state remedies is required as a prerequisite to consideration” of a federal habeas petition. See Pitchess v. Davis, 421 U.S. 482, 487 (1975). Section 2254(b)(1) provides that a court should not grant a writ of habeas corpus on behalf of state prisoner “unless it appears that—(A) the applicant has
exhausted the remedies available in the courts of the State; or (B)(i) there is an absence of available State corrective process; or (ii) circumstances exist that render such process ineffective to protect the rights of the applicant.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(1); see also Rose v. Lundy, 455 U.S. 509, 518-19 (1982) (discussing the function of a total exhaustion rule). C. Analysis Here, Petitioner alleges that the Petition was “[s]ubmitted to The Superior Court of Guam, The Supreme Court of Guam, The District Court of Guam, and the United [S]tates Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit via U.S.P.S.” Pet. at 1, ECF No. 1. This alone demonstrates that Petitioner has neither exhausted the remedies available to him in state court nor provided any other circumstances in support of the exhaustion requirement. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(1). The
Petition itself alleges that federal habeas relief was sought simultaneously with state habeas relief. Therefore, the Petition is DISMISSED without prejudice because the court cannot proceed until Petitioner satisfies the exhaustion requirement. Page 5 of 5
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
THE DISTRICT COURT OF GUAM
BRIAN JASON MARTINEZ, aka CIVIL CASE NO. 24-00017 BRENDA JOYCE MARTINEZ, Petitioner, DECISION AND ORDER GRANTING APPLICATION TO WAIVE FEES vs. (ECF NO. 7) AND DISMISSING WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS (ECF NO. 1) VERNON PEREZ, Respondent.
This matter is before the court on Petitioner Brian Jason Martinez’s Writ of Habeas Corpus (the “Petition”), ECF No. 1, and Application to Proceed in District Court Without Prepaying Fees or Costs (the “Application to Waive Fees”), ECF No. 7. For the reasons stated below, the court GRANTS the Application to Waive Fees and DISMISSES the Petition without prejudice. I. Background1 Petitioner filed the instant habeas petition on August 6, 2024, alleging that he is incarcerated at the Guam Department of Corrections despite Constitutional violations arising out
1 Page citations throughout this Decision and Order refer to CM/ECF-generated page numbers. of his case in the Superior Court of Guam (Case No. CF0278-24).2 See Pet. at 1-2, ECF No. 1. The allegations begin “on or around April 29, 2024,” when Petitioner was arrested. Id. Petitioner first claims that the duration of his pre-trial confinement constitutes a “violation of a due process of law,” and that he “was taken to trial despite the Constitutional violation.” Id. at 2-3. The remaining allegations are difficult to discern, but Petitioner appears to allege separate issues related to a document being “not dated not signed,” a due process violation for “not [being] afforded a fair speedy trial,” and ineffective assistance of counsel. Id. at 3-4. However, these allegations are unsupported by additional facts. See id. Petitioner ultimately requests “to file an ethics complaint against appointment of counsel due to negligence and misrepresentation,” and
for the “dismissal and expungement of CF0278-24 as well as the immediate release from confinement.” Id. at 4-5. Also on August 6, 2024, the court informed Petitioner of his failure to pay the filing fee and provided a deadline of September 5, 2024, to either make payment or file an application to proceed without prepaying fees or costs. See Letter, ECF No. 3. Petitioner initially failed to respond, but after the court issued an Order to Show Cause on September 19, 2024, Petitioner filed the instant Application to Waive Fees. See Order, ECF No. 5; Appl., ECF No. 7. II. Application to Waive Fees Petitioner has applied to proceed without prepaying fees or costs. Appl., ECF No. 7. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1), a court may authorize a person to commence a civil action
without prepaying the required filing fee, provided that the person “submits an affidavit [stating] . . . that the person is unable to pay such fees or give security therefor.”
2 The court notes that Petitioner signed and dated the Petition July 11, 2024. Pet. at 5, ECF No. 1. The court has reviewed Petitioner’s Application to Waive Fees and finds that he has sufficiently shown that he is unable to pay the fees or give the security required to commence this action. At the time of filing, Petitioner indicated that he was incarcerated in the Guam Department of Corrections and that he has no income or deposits in a checking or savings account. See Appl. at 6-7, ECF No. 7. Petitioner also indicated that he has no expenses or other financial obligations. Id. at 7. Although Petitioner filed a Consent to the Release of Trust Account Information, it does not appear that the form was completed by an authorized official. See id. at 3-4, 8-9. Nonetheless, based on Petitioner’s representations about his financial circumstances, the court finds that he does not have the means to pay the full or a partial filing
fee in this case. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(a)(1), (b). Accordingly, the Application to Waive Fees is III. The Petition A. Jurisdiction The court has jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331. The Petition is brought under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 and claims a “violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.” See Pet. at 2-5, ECF No. 1. B. Standard of Review When a petitioner proceeds in forma pauperis under 28 U.S.C. § 1915, the court must screen the lawsuit to determine whether the action is “frivolous or malicious,” “fails to state a
claim upon which relief may be granted,” or “seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i)-(iii); Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1126-27 (9th Cir. 2000). Furthermore, when a habeas petition is filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, the court must summarily dismiss the case “if it plainly appears from the petition and any attached exhibits that the petitioner is not entitled to relief in district court.” Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases, R. 4, 28 U.S.C. foll. § 2254 [hereinafter “Section 2254 Rules”]. Habeas petitions brought under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 must “(1) specify all the grounds for relief available to the petitioner; (2) state the facts supporting each ground; and (3) state the relief requested.” Section 2254 Rules, R. 2(c)(1)-(3); cf. Mayle v. Felix, 545 U.S. 644, 648-49, 654-56 (2005) (discussing heightened pleading rules for habeas petitions). However, “exhaustion of state remedies is required as a prerequisite to consideration” of a federal habeas petition. See Pitchess v. Davis, 421 U.S. 482, 487 (1975). Section 2254(b)(1) provides that a court should not grant a writ of habeas corpus on behalf of state prisoner “unless it appears that—(A) the applicant has
exhausted the remedies available in the courts of the State; or (B)(i) there is an absence of available State corrective process; or (ii) circumstances exist that render such process ineffective to protect the rights of the applicant.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(1); see also Rose v. Lundy, 455 U.S. 509, 518-19 (1982) (discussing the function of a total exhaustion rule). C. Analysis Here, Petitioner alleges that the Petition was “[s]ubmitted to The Superior Court of Guam, The Supreme Court of Guam, The District Court of Guam, and the United [S]tates Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit via U.S.P.S.” Pet. at 1, ECF No. 1. This alone demonstrates that Petitioner has neither exhausted the remedies available to him in state court nor provided any other circumstances in support of the exhaustion requirement. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(1). The
Petition itself alleges that federal habeas relief was sought simultaneously with state habeas relief. Therefore, the Petition is DISMISSED without prejudice because the court cannot proceed until Petitioner satisfies the exhaustion requirement. Page 5 of 5
] This dismissal should not be construed as preventing Petitioner from filing a renewed petition for writ of habeas corpus after he has exhausted the remedies available to him in state court. However, the court notes that failure to exhaust state court remedies on a renewed petition may result in dismissal with prejudice. See Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 489 (2000) (“Once the petitioner is made aware of the exhaustion requirement, no reason exists for him not to exhaust [his remedies] before returning to federal court. The failure to comply with an order of the court is grounds for dismissal with prejudice.”). D. Certificate of Appealability Under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, a petitioner seeking a writ of habeas corpus may only appeal a district court’s dismissal of his petition after obtaining a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. ] § 2253(c)(1). The court may only issue a certificate of appealability where the petitioner has “made a substantial showing of the denial of his constitutional night.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). As such, the petitioner must show that “jurists of reason could disagree with the district court’s resolution of his constitutional claims or that jurists could conclude the issues presented are adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further.” Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 327 (2003). Petitioner has failed to make a “substantial showing of the denial of his constitution right,” and, therefore, the court finds that he is not entitled to certificate of appealability. IV. Conclusion For the foregoing reasons, the Application to Waive Fees is GRANTED, and the Petition DISMISSED without prejudice for failure to exhaust state remedies. The court further declines to issue a certificate of appealability. The Clerk of Court is directed to close this case.
sr /s/ Frances M. Tydingco-Gatewood we Chief Judge es ee Dated: Jun 17, 2025