1 2
3 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 6
7 STEVEN BERNARD PALLETT, NO: 2:21-CV-0006-TOR 8 Petitioner, ORDER SUMMARILY DISMISSING 9 v. HABEAS PETITION
10 STATE OF WASHINGTON,
11 Respondent.
12 Petitioner, a prisoner at the Coyote Ridge Corrections Center, brings this pro 13 se Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person in State Custody pursuant to 28 14 U.S.C. § 2254. Because it appears Petitioner lacks sufficient funds to prosecute this 15 action, his request to proceed in forma pauperis is granted and this action may 16 proceed without payment of the filing fee. Also before the Court are Petitioner’s 17 Motion for Vicarious Exhaustion of State Remedies and Motion to Compell (sic) for 18 Information. ECF Nos. 1 at 39-41, and 1 at 42-43. 19 PROPER RESPONDENT 20 An initial defect with the Petition is that it fails to name a proper party as a 1 respondent. The proper respondent in a federal petition seeking habeas corpus relief 2 is the person having custody of the petitioner. Rumsfeld v. Padilla, 542 U.S. 426
3 (2004); Stanley v. Cal. Supreme Court, 21 F.3d 359, 360 (9th Cir. 1994). If the 4 petitioner is incarcerated, the proper respondent is generally the warden of the 5 institution where the petitioner is incarcerated. See Ortiz-Sandoval v. Gomez, 81 F.3d
6 891 (9th Cir. 1996). Failure to name a proper respondent deprives federal courts of 7 personal jurisdiction. See Stanley, 21 F.3d at 360. 8 EXHAUSTION REQUIREMENT 9 Petitioner challenges his 2017 Spokane County convictions for first degree
10 rape. ECF No. 1 at 1. He was sentenced to 10-years incarceration. Id. Petitioner 11 indicates that he appealed his conviction, but it was denied. Id. at 2. Petitioner 12 claims that he did not seek review by a higher court. Id. Petitioner did not raise the
13 issues he brings here, in state court. Id. at 6, 7, 9, 10. 14 In his grounds for relief, Petitioner argues that the State of Washington has no 15 jurisdiction to decide federal constitutional matters. ECF No. 1 at 17. It has long 16 been settled that state courts are competent to decide questions arising under the U.S.
17 Constitution. See Baker v. Grice, 169 U.S. 284, 291 (1898) (“It is the duty of the 18 state court, as much as it is that of the federal courts, when the question of the validity 19 of a state statute is necessarily involved, as being in alleged violation of any
20 provision of the federal constitution, to decide that question, and to hold the law void 1 if it violate that instrument.”); see also Worldwide Church of God v. McNair, 805 2 F.2d 888, 891 (9th Cir. 1986) (holding that state courts are as competent as federal
3 courts to decide federal constitutional matters). Therefore, Petitioner’s arguments 4 to the contrary lack merit. 5 Additionally, before a federal court may grant habeas relief to a state prisoner,
6 the prisoner must exhaust the state court remedies available to him. 28 U.S.C. § 7 2254(b); Baldwin v. Reese, 541 U.S. 27 (2004). Exhaustion generally requires that 8 a prisoner give the state courts an opportunity to act on his claims before he presents 9 those claims to a federal court. O’Sullivan v. Boerckel, 526 U.S. 838 (1999). A
10 petitioner has not exhausted a claim for relief so long as the petitioner has a right 11 under state law to raise the claim by available procedure. See id.; 28 U.S.C. § 12 2254(c).
13 To meet the exhaustion requirement, the petitioner must have “fairly 14 present[ed] his claim in each appropriate state court (including a state supreme court 15 with powers of discretionary review), thereby alerting that court to the federal nature 16 of the claim.” Baldwin, 541 U.S. at 29; see also Duncan v. Henry, 513 U.S. 364,
17 365–66 (1995). A petitioner fairly presents a claim to the state court by describing 18 the factual or legal bases for that claim and by alerting the state court “to the fact 19 that the . . . [petitioner is] asserting claims under the United States Constitution.”
20 Duncan, 513 U.S. at 365–366; see also Tamalini v. Stewart, 249 F.3d 895, 898 (9th 1 Cir. 2001) (same). Mere similarity between a claim raised in state court and a claim 2 in a federal habeas petition is insufficient. Duncan, 513 U.S. at 365–366.
3 Furthermore, to fairly present a claim, the petitioner “must give the state 4 courts one full opportunity to resolve any constitutional issues by invoking one 5 complete round of the State’s established appellate review process.” O’Sullivan,
6 526 U.S. at 845. Once a federal claim has been fairly presented to the state courts, 7 the exhaustion requirement is satisfied. See Picard v. Connor, 404 U.S. 270, 275 8 (1971). It does not appear from the face of the Petition or the attached documents 9 that Petitioner has exhausted his state court remedies as to each of his grounds for
10 relief. Indeed, Petitioner affirmatively represents that he did not exhaust his state 11 court remedies and seeks to establish exhaustion by vicariously asserting Scott A. 12 Fischer’s claimed exhaustion of his remedies. ECF No. 1 at 39. Petitioner cites no
13 authority which would support application of the vicarious exhaustion rule in the 14 context of a federal habeas action brought under § 2254. Moreover, another Court 15 has disagreed with the proposition that Mr. Fischer properly exhausted his state court 16 remedies on the issues before this Court. See Power v. Washington, No. C20-0434-
17 BJR-MAT, 2020 WL 4227815, at *2 (W.D. Wash. May 14, 2020), report and 18 recommendation adopted, No. C20-0434-BJR, 2020 WL 4226521 (W.D. Wash. July 19 22, 2020). Accordingly, this Court rejects Petitioner’s proposal that he be relieved
20 of the exhaustion requirement. 1 GROUNDS FOR FEDERAL HABEAS RELIEF 2 Essentially, Petitioner asserts that the Washington state constitution
3 contradicts the federal constitution regarding the Fifth Amendment right to 4 presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury. He claims “no bill of indictment” was 5 brought against him rendering his arrest, conviction and imprisonment illegal.
6 Petitioner asserts that the Washington state constitution contradicts the federal 7 constitution regarding the Fifth Amendment right to “presentment or indictment of 8 a Grand Jury.” He claims “no bill of indictment” was brought against him rendering 9 his arrest, conviction and imprisonment illegal.
10 Petitioner seems to argue that because the state courts have defied “federally 11 established procedures and processes for the adjudication of crimes” only “a court 12 of federal jurisdiction” has jurisdictional authority over his claims. His bald
13 assertion that “due process of the law was ignored” is unsupported by his factual 14 allegations. 15 The United States Supreme Court stated long ago: “Prosecution by 16 information instead of by indictment is provided for by the laws of Washington.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
1 2
3 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 6
7 STEVEN BERNARD PALLETT, NO: 2:21-CV-0006-TOR 8 Petitioner, ORDER SUMMARILY DISMISSING 9 v. HABEAS PETITION
10 STATE OF WASHINGTON,
11 Respondent.
12 Petitioner, a prisoner at the Coyote Ridge Corrections Center, brings this pro 13 se Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person in State Custody pursuant to 28 14 U.S.C. § 2254. Because it appears Petitioner lacks sufficient funds to prosecute this 15 action, his request to proceed in forma pauperis is granted and this action may 16 proceed without payment of the filing fee. Also before the Court are Petitioner’s 17 Motion for Vicarious Exhaustion of State Remedies and Motion to Compell (sic) for 18 Information. ECF Nos. 1 at 39-41, and 1 at 42-43. 19 PROPER RESPONDENT 20 An initial defect with the Petition is that it fails to name a proper party as a 1 respondent. The proper respondent in a federal petition seeking habeas corpus relief 2 is the person having custody of the petitioner. Rumsfeld v. Padilla, 542 U.S. 426
3 (2004); Stanley v. Cal. Supreme Court, 21 F.3d 359, 360 (9th Cir. 1994). If the 4 petitioner is incarcerated, the proper respondent is generally the warden of the 5 institution where the petitioner is incarcerated. See Ortiz-Sandoval v. Gomez, 81 F.3d
6 891 (9th Cir. 1996). Failure to name a proper respondent deprives federal courts of 7 personal jurisdiction. See Stanley, 21 F.3d at 360. 8 EXHAUSTION REQUIREMENT 9 Petitioner challenges his 2017 Spokane County convictions for first degree
10 rape. ECF No. 1 at 1. He was sentenced to 10-years incarceration. Id. Petitioner 11 indicates that he appealed his conviction, but it was denied. Id. at 2. Petitioner 12 claims that he did not seek review by a higher court. Id. Petitioner did not raise the
13 issues he brings here, in state court. Id. at 6, 7, 9, 10. 14 In his grounds for relief, Petitioner argues that the State of Washington has no 15 jurisdiction to decide federal constitutional matters. ECF No. 1 at 17. It has long 16 been settled that state courts are competent to decide questions arising under the U.S.
17 Constitution. See Baker v. Grice, 169 U.S. 284, 291 (1898) (“It is the duty of the 18 state court, as much as it is that of the federal courts, when the question of the validity 19 of a state statute is necessarily involved, as being in alleged violation of any
20 provision of the federal constitution, to decide that question, and to hold the law void 1 if it violate that instrument.”); see also Worldwide Church of God v. McNair, 805 2 F.2d 888, 891 (9th Cir. 1986) (holding that state courts are as competent as federal
3 courts to decide federal constitutional matters). Therefore, Petitioner’s arguments 4 to the contrary lack merit. 5 Additionally, before a federal court may grant habeas relief to a state prisoner,
6 the prisoner must exhaust the state court remedies available to him. 28 U.S.C. § 7 2254(b); Baldwin v. Reese, 541 U.S. 27 (2004). Exhaustion generally requires that 8 a prisoner give the state courts an opportunity to act on his claims before he presents 9 those claims to a federal court. O’Sullivan v. Boerckel, 526 U.S. 838 (1999). A
10 petitioner has not exhausted a claim for relief so long as the petitioner has a right 11 under state law to raise the claim by available procedure. See id.; 28 U.S.C. § 12 2254(c).
13 To meet the exhaustion requirement, the petitioner must have “fairly 14 present[ed] his claim in each appropriate state court (including a state supreme court 15 with powers of discretionary review), thereby alerting that court to the federal nature 16 of the claim.” Baldwin, 541 U.S. at 29; see also Duncan v. Henry, 513 U.S. 364,
17 365–66 (1995). A petitioner fairly presents a claim to the state court by describing 18 the factual or legal bases for that claim and by alerting the state court “to the fact 19 that the . . . [petitioner is] asserting claims under the United States Constitution.”
20 Duncan, 513 U.S. at 365–366; see also Tamalini v. Stewart, 249 F.3d 895, 898 (9th 1 Cir. 2001) (same). Mere similarity between a claim raised in state court and a claim 2 in a federal habeas petition is insufficient. Duncan, 513 U.S. at 365–366.
3 Furthermore, to fairly present a claim, the petitioner “must give the state 4 courts one full opportunity to resolve any constitutional issues by invoking one 5 complete round of the State’s established appellate review process.” O’Sullivan,
6 526 U.S. at 845. Once a federal claim has been fairly presented to the state courts, 7 the exhaustion requirement is satisfied. See Picard v. Connor, 404 U.S. 270, 275 8 (1971). It does not appear from the face of the Petition or the attached documents 9 that Petitioner has exhausted his state court remedies as to each of his grounds for
10 relief. Indeed, Petitioner affirmatively represents that he did not exhaust his state 11 court remedies and seeks to establish exhaustion by vicariously asserting Scott A. 12 Fischer’s claimed exhaustion of his remedies. ECF No. 1 at 39. Petitioner cites no
13 authority which would support application of the vicarious exhaustion rule in the 14 context of a federal habeas action brought under § 2254. Moreover, another Court 15 has disagreed with the proposition that Mr. Fischer properly exhausted his state court 16 remedies on the issues before this Court. See Power v. Washington, No. C20-0434-
17 BJR-MAT, 2020 WL 4227815, at *2 (W.D. Wash. May 14, 2020), report and 18 recommendation adopted, No. C20-0434-BJR, 2020 WL 4226521 (W.D. Wash. July 19 22, 2020). Accordingly, this Court rejects Petitioner’s proposal that he be relieved
20 of the exhaustion requirement. 1 GROUNDS FOR FEDERAL HABEAS RELIEF 2 Essentially, Petitioner asserts that the Washington state constitution
3 contradicts the federal constitution regarding the Fifth Amendment right to 4 presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury. He claims “no bill of indictment” was 5 brought against him rendering his arrest, conviction and imprisonment illegal.
6 Petitioner asserts that the Washington state constitution contradicts the federal 7 constitution regarding the Fifth Amendment right to “presentment or indictment of 8 a Grand Jury.” He claims “no bill of indictment” was brought against him rendering 9 his arrest, conviction and imprisonment illegal.
10 Petitioner seems to argue that because the state courts have defied “federally 11 established procedures and processes for the adjudication of crimes” only “a court 12 of federal jurisdiction” has jurisdictional authority over his claims. His bald
13 assertion that “due process of the law was ignored” is unsupported by his factual 14 allegations. 15 The United States Supreme Court stated long ago: “Prosecution by 16 information instead of by indictment is provided for by the laws of Washington.
17 This is not a violation of the Federal Constitution.” See Gaines v. State of 18 Washington, 277 U.S. 81, 86 (1928). Consequently, Petitioner’s assertions to the 19 contrary presented in his four grounds for federal habeas relief are legally frivolous.
20 Because it plainly appears from the petition and the attached exhibits that 1 || Petitioner is not entitled to relief in this Court, IT IS ORDERED: 2 1. The petition, ECF No. 1, is DISMISSED pursuant to Rule 4, Rules Governing 3 Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts. 4 2. Petitioner’s Motion for Vicarious Exhaustion of State Remedies and Motion 5 to Compell (sic) for Information, ECF Nos. | at 39-41, 1 at 42-43, are 6 DENIED. 7 3. The Court finds that any appeal of this Order would not be taken in good 8 faith and would lack any arguable basis in law or fact. Accordingly, the 9 Court hereby REVOKES Plaintiff's in forma pauperis status. If Plaintiff 10 seeks to pursue an appeal, he must pay the requisite filing fee. 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 March 2, 2021. is CO, 0%; 19 Aad] — uss. RICE > United States District Judge 20