Salas v. Attorney General

Opinion

1 2

5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA 7 ENCARNACION SALAS IV, CASE NO. C22-1864 BHS 8 Petitioner, ORDER 9 v. 10 ATTORNEY GENERAL, 11 Respondent. 12

13 THIS MATTER is before the Court on Magistrate Judge Theresa L. Fricke’s 14 Report and Recommendation (R&R), Dkt. 7, recommending the Court deny pro se 15 petitioner Encarnacion Salas’s 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition for failure to exhaust his 16 state court remedies, specifically by failing to appeal his conviction to the state’s highest 17 court, the Washington Supreme Court. Dkt. 7 at 2. Salas objects, arguing that he appealed 18 to the Washington Court of Appeals, which “goes through” the Superior Court. Dkt. 8. 19 The R&R correctly concluded that, to properly exhaust his federal claims, a 20 would-be habeas petitioner must finish “one complete round of the State’s established 21 appellate review process,” up to the highest state court with powers of discretionary 22 review. Dkt. 7 at 2 (citing O’Sullivan v. Boerckel, 526 U.S. 838, 845 (1999)). A federal 1 court must dismiss a federal habeas corpus petition if its claims are unexhausted. 2 Coleman v. Thompson, 501 U.S. 722, 731 (1991).

3 Salas’s claims are unexhausted, and the R&R is ADOPTED. His amended § 2254 4 petition, Dkt. 6, is DISMISSED without prejudice. The Court will not issue a certificate 5 of appealability. 6 The Clerk shall enter a JUDGMENT and close the case. 7 IT IS SO ORDERED. 8 Dated this 27th day of June, 2023. A 9 10 BENJAMIN H. SETTLE 11 United States District Judge

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22