Tony Scott Grantham v. The People of the State of California

• Court: District Court, C.D. California
• Decided: July 14, 2020
• Docket: 5:20-cv-00039
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2

4 5 6

7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10

11 TONY SCOTT GRANTHAM Case No. 5:20-cv-00039-SVW (SHK) 12 Petitioner, 13 ORDER SUMMARILY DENYING v. PETITION AS PREMATURE AND 14 UNEXHAUSTED, DISMISSING THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CASE, DENYING APPLICATION 15 CALIFORNIA, TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS, AND DENYING A 16 CERTIFICATE OF Respondent. APPEALABILITY 17

18 19 I. BACKGROUND 20 On December 26, 2019, Petitioner Tony Scott Grantham (“Petitioner”) 21 constructively filed1 a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 22 (the “Petition” or “Pet.”). Electronic Case Filing Number (“ECF No.”) 1, Pet. On 23 January 16, 2020, Petitioner also constructively filed an application to proceed in 24 forma pauperis (“IFP Application”). ECF No. 3, IFP Application. In his Petition, 25 Petitioner states that he was sentenced in the Pomona Superior Court in case 26

27 1 Under the “mailbox rule,” when a pro se prisoner gives prison authorities a pleading to mail to 1 number KA120456 for a “vehicle code violation” and that he has “been 2 incarcerated since January 09, 2019[,] in West Valley Detention Center.” ECF No. 3 1, Pet. at 2, 3 (capitalization normalized). Petitioner seeks habeas relief on the 4 basis that he was “denied 60 day speedy trial rights, pursuant to 1381-1382” and 5 that his “constitutional rights” were therefore “violated, pursuant to 6 1381-1382/dismissal.” Id. 7 Petitioner asserts that he appealed his conviction, but he did not list the 8 Court to which he appealed his conviction or the date on which he filed his appeal. 9 Id. at 5. According to the California Court of Appeal website, a corresponding 10 appeal with Petitioner’s name and the same trial court case number was filed on 11 December 26, 2019, in the Second Appellate District of the California Court of 12 Appeal, it was assigned a California Court of Appeal case number B303598, and 13 the appeal is still pending.2 Petitioner concedes that he has not yet received a 14 “response from the appellate court on the notice of appeal,” and that he has also 15 not sought review by the California Supreme Court. Id. at 5-6 16 II. DISCUSSION 17 State prisoners must exhaust their state court remedies before a federal court 18 may consider granting habeas corpus relief. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(1)(A); 19 O’Sullivan v. Boerckel, 526 U.S. 838, 842 (1999). To satisfy the exhaustion 20 requirement, habeas petitioners must fairly present their federal claims involving 21 violations of the U.S. Constitution in the state courts in order to give the State the 22 opportunity to pass upon and correct alleged violations of prisoners’ federal rights. 23 Duncan v. Henry, 513 U.S. 364, 365 (1995) (per curiam). Habeas petitioners must 24 25 2 Because the Court may review and consider the information from official websites regarding the status of Petitioner’s state court matters, the Court takes judicial notice of the California 26 Court docket pertaining to Petitioner. See Fed. R. Evid. 201 (providing that a court may take judicial notice of adjudicative facts that “can be accurately and readily determined from sources 27 whose accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned”); Harris v. County of Orange, 682 F.3d 1126, 1 give the state courts “one full opportunity” to decide a federal claim by carrying 2 out “one complete round” of the state’s appellate process in order to properly 3 exhaust a claim. O’Sullivan, 526 U.S. at 845. 4 To properly exhaust habeas claims, petitioners in California state custody 5 must “fairly present” their claims in petitions to the California Supreme Court. 6 Gatlin v. Madding, 189 F.3d 882, 888 (9th Cir. 1999) (applying O’Sullivan to 7 California). A claim has been fairly presented only if the petitioner has “indicated 8 to the court that [the federal claims] were based on federal law.” Lyons v. 9 Crawford, 232 F. 3d 666, 668 (9th Cir. 2000), amended, 247 F.3d 904 (9th Cir. 10 2001). 11 Here, it appears that Petitioner began his direct appeal process roughly one 12 month ago in the California Court of Appeal, where his appeal is still pending. 13 Further, Petitioner concedes that he has sought review of his claims in the 14 California Supreme Court. Because Petitioner has not yet fairly presented his 15 claims in state court, the Petition is summarily dismissed, without prejudice, as 16 prematurely brought and unexhausted. See Duncan, 513 U.S. at 365; Gatlin, 189 17 F.3d at 888. Additionally, because the Petition is premature, Petitioner’s IFP 18 Application is also DENIED. 19 III. CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY 20 Under the Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 21 (“AEDPA”), a state prisoner seeking to appeal a district court’s final order in a 22 habeas corpus proceeding must obtain a Certificate of Appealability (“COA”) from 23 the district judge or a circuit judge. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A). A COA may issue 24 “only if the applicant has made a substantial showing of the denial of a 25 constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). “A petitioner satisfies this standard 26 by demonstrating that jurists of reason could disagree with the district court’s 27 resolution of his constitutional claims or that jurists could conclude the issues 1 | presented are adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further.” Muller-El v. 2 | Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 327 (2003). 3 When the Court dismisses a petition on procedural grounds, it must issue a 4 | COA if the petitioner shows: (1) “that jurists of reason would find it debatable 5 | whether the petition states a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional right,” and 6 | (2) “that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the district court was 7 | correct in its procedural ruling.” Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 478 (2000). 8 Here, the Court is dismissing the Petition without prejudice because the 9 | claims are plainly unexhausted. Because of this clearly apparent problem with the 10 | Petition, Petitioner cannot make the requisite showing that jurists of reason would 11 | find it debatable whether the district court was correct in its procedural ruling. 12 IV. ORDER 13 Based on the foregoing, IT IS ORDERED THAT: 14 1. The Petition is DENIED; 15 2. Judgment be entered DISMISSING the action without prejudice; 16 3. Petitioner’s IFP Application [ECF No. 3] is DENIED; and 17 4. A Certificate of Appealability is DENIED. 18 | Dated: — July 14, 2020 Loe 19 /CEEsy FONORABLE STEPHEN'Y-WIESON 21 22 | Presented by: 23 Bp ete 24 | HONORABLE SHASHI H. KEWALRAMANI 95 United States Magistrate Judge 26 27 28