Monson v. State of Washington

• Court: District Court, E.D. Washington
• Decided: January 8, 2021
• Docket: 1:20-cv-03250
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 FILED IN THE U.S. DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 2 Jan 08, 2021

3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SEAN F. MCAVOY, CLERK EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 4 DONALD CRAIG MONSON, No. 1:20-cv-03250-SMJ 5 Petitioner, 6 ORDER SUMMARILY v. DISMISSING HABEAS CORPUS 7 PETITION STATE OF WASHINGTON, 8 Respondent. 9

10 Petitioner Donald Craig Monson, a prisoner at the Coyote Ridge Corrections 11 Center, filed a pro se application for a writ of habeas corpus by a person in State 12 custody under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. ECF No. 1. He paid the $5.00 filing fee, so his 13 application to proceed in forma pauperis is denied as moot. Having reviewed the 14 petition and the record in this matter, the Court is fully informed and dismisses the 15 petition because of several deficiencies briefly summarized below. 16 PROPER RESPONDENT 17 The proper respondent in a federal petition seeking habeas corpus relief is the 18 person having custody of the petitioner. Rumsfeld v. Padilla, 542 U.S. 426 (2004); 19 Stanley v. Cal. Supreme Court, 21 F.3d 359, 360 (9th Cir. 1994). If the petitioner is 20 incarcerated, the proper respondent is generally the warden of the institution where 1 the petitioner is incarcerated. See Ortiz-Sandoval v. Gomez, 81 F.3d 891, 893 (9th 2 Cir. 1996). Therefore, only Jeffrey Uttecht is the proper respondent to this action.

3 EXHAUSTION REQUIREMENT 4 Petitioner challenges his 2018 guilty plea to three counts of rape of a child in 5 the second degree in Kittitas County, Washington. ECF No. 1 at 1. He was

6 sentenced to 146 months incarceration. Id. Petitioner filed a personal restraint 7 petition, which was denied by the Court of Appeals on February 24, 2020. Id. at 2. 8 Although he checks the box stating that he sought further review by a higher court, 9 he again lists the Court of Appeals and indicates review was denied on November

10 30, 2020. Id. at 2. 11 Elsewhere, Petitioner indicates that his “prior appeal attempts [were] ruled 12 ‘untimely’” and invites the Court to “see Attachment A-1.” Id. at 1. Attachment A-

13 1 is an assertion that “The State of Washington[1] does not have jurisdictional 14 authority[2] to decide on United States Constitution[3] matters, which are outside 15 its jurisdictional or statutory governing limits[4].” ECF No. 1-1 at 2. 16 Before a federal court may grant habeas corpus relief to a state prisoner, the

17 prisoner must exhaust the state court remedies available to him. 28 U.S.C. § 18 2254(b); Baldwin v. Reese, 541 U.S. 27 (2004). Exhaustion generally requires that 19 a prisoner give the state courts an opportunity to act on his claims before he presents

20 those claims to a federal court. O’Sullivan v. Boerckel, 526 U.S. 838 (1999). A 1 petitioner has not exhausted a claim for relief if they have a right under state law to 2 raise the claim by an available procedure. See id.; 28 U.S.C. § 2254(c).

3 To meet the exhaustion requirement, the petitioner must have “fairly 4 present[ed] his claim in each appropriate state court (including a state supreme court 5 with powers of discretionary review), thereby alerting that court to the federal

6 nature of the claim.” Baldwin, 541 U.S. at 29; see also Duncan v. Henry, 513 U.S. 7 364, 365–66 (1995). A petitioner fairly presents a claim to a state court by 8 describing the factual or legal bases for that claim and by alerting the state court “to 9 the fact that the . . . [petitioner is] asserting claims under the United States

10 Constitution.” Duncan, 513 U.S. at 365–66; see also Tamalini v. Stewart, 249 F.3d 11 895, 898 (9th Cir. 2001). Mere similarity between a claim raised in a state court and 12 a claim in a federal habeas corpus petition is insufficient. Duncan, 513 U.S. at 365–

13 66. 14 Furthermore, to fairly present a claim, the petitioner “must give the state 15 courts one full opportunity to resolve any constitutional issues by invoking one 16 complete round of the State’s established appellate review process.” O’Sullivan,

17 526 U.S. at 845. Once a federal claim has been fairly presented to the state courts, 18 the exhaustion requirement is satisfied. See Picard v. Connor, 404 U.S. 270, 275 19 (1971). It appears from the face of the petition and the attached documents that

20 Petitioner has not exhausted his state court remedies on each of his grounds for 1 relief. See ECF No. 1. Indeed, Petitioner affirmatively represents that he did not do 2 so. Id. at 12.

3 GROUNDS FOR FEDERAL HABEAS CORPUS RELIEF 4 Throughout the petition, Petitioner invites the Court to “see” his numbered 5 attachments, A-1 to A-25. Id. at 5–14. In his first ground for relief, Petitioner asserts

6 that, “Washington State failed to convene a ‘Grand Jury’ to assess the existence of 7 valid forensic evidence.” Id. at 5. As further grounds for relief, Petitioner argues 8 that the State of Washington has no jurisdiction to decide federal constitutional 9 matters. ECF No. 1-1 at 2-4.

10 It has long been settled that state courts are competent to decide questions 11 arising under the U.S. Constitution. See Baker v. Grice, 169 U.S. 284, 291 (1898) 12 (“It is the duty of the state court, as much as it is that of the federal courts, when the

13 question of the validity of a state statute is necessarily involved, as being in alleged 14 violation of any provision of the federal constitution, to decide that question, and to 15 hold the law void if it violate that instrument.”); see also Worldwide Church of God 16 v. McNair, 805 F.2d 888, 891 (9th Cir. 1986) (holding that state courts are as

17 competent as federal courts to decide federal constitutional matters). Petitioner’s 18 arguments to the contrary are meritless. 19 Petitioner also asserts that the Washington State Constitution contradicts the

20 U.S. Constitution regarding the Fifth Amendment right to “presentment or 1 indictment of a Grand Jury.” ECF No. 1-1 at 2. He claims “no bill of indictment” 2 was brought against him, rendering his arrest, conviction, and imprisonment illegal.

3 Id. Petitioner seems to argue that because the state courts have allegedly defied 4 “federally established procedures and processes for the adjudication of crimes,” 5 only “a court of federal jurisdiction” has jurisdiction over his claims. Id.

6 The U.S. Supreme Court has long recognized that, “[p]rosecution by 7 information instead of by indictment is provided for by the laws of Washington. 8 This is not a violation of the Federal Constitution.” See Gaines v. Washington, 277 9 U.S. 81, 86 (1928). There is no federal constitutional violation when a prosecuting

10 attorney’s criminal information is substituted for the grand jury’s indictment. See 11 Hurtado v. California, 110 U.S. 516 (1884) (rejecting the claim that an indictment 12 is essential to due process of law and that a state violates the Fourteenth Amendment

13 by prosecuting a defendant with a criminal information). Petitioner’s assertions to 14 the contrary are legally frivolous. 15 Because it plainly appears from the petition and accompanying documents 16 that Petitioner is not entitled to relief in this Court, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:

17 1. The petition, ECF No. 1, is DISMISSED under Rule 4 of the Rules 18 Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts. 19 2. All pending motions are DENIED AS MOOT.

20 3. The Clerk’s Office is directed to ENTER JUDGMENT. 1 4. The Clerk’s Office is directed to CLOSE this file. 2 5. The Court certifies that, under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), an appeal from 3 this decision could not be taken in good faith and there is no basis upon 4 which to issue a certificate of appealability. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c); 5 Fed. R. App. P. 22(b). A certificate of appealability is therefore

6 DENIED.

7 IT IS SO ORDERED. The Clerk’s Office is directed to enter this Order and 8 || provide copies to Petitioner. 9 DATED this 8" day of January 2021.

SALVADOR MENDGEA, JR. | United States District Juage 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20