The opinion
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
8
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
9
10
WILLIAM BARTON, Case No. CV 20-00078 FMO (RAO)
11
Petitioner,
12
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
v. RE SUMMARY DISMISSAL OF
13
PETITION FOR WRIT OF
SAN JOAQUIN, HABEAS CORPUS AND DENIAL
14
OF CERTIFICATE OF
Respondent. APPEALABILITY
15
16
17 I. BACKGROUND
18 On January 3, 2020, Petitioner William Ray Barton (“Petitioner”) filed a
19 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (“Petition”). Pet., Dkt. No. 1.
20 Petitioner was convicted of his underlying criminal offense in 1976. Pet. at 2.
21 Petitioner asserts that he can prove his innocence if he has a trial. Id. at 3. Records
22 of the California Supreme Court indicate that Petitioner has not filed any appeals or
23 state habeas petitions with that court.1
24
25 1 The Court takes judicial notice of the records of the California Supreme Court,
26 which are available at http://appellatecases.courtinfo.ca.gov. See Fed. R. Evid.
201(b)(2) (providing that a court may take judicial notice of adjudicative facts that
27
“can be accurately and readily determined from sources whose accuracy cannot
28 reasonably be questioned”); Harris v. Cty. of Orange, 682 F.3d 1126, 1131-32 (9th
1 This Court has received multiple habeas petitions from Petitioner starting in
2018, all of which have been dismissed for failure to exhaust state court remedies.
2
See Barton v. People State of California, CV 18-5863-FMO-RAO (C.D. Cal., filed
3
July 3, 2018); Barton v. Superior Court, CV 18-6853-FMO-RAO (C.D. Cal., filed
4
Aug. 9, 2018); Barton v. Board of Parole Hearings, CV 18-9707-FMO-RAO (C.D.
5
Cal., filed Nov. 16, 2018); Barton v. People of the State of California, CV 19-546-
6
FMO-RAO (C.D. Cal., filed Dec. 28, 2018); Barton v. Clerk of U.S. District Court,
7
et al., CV 19-1178-FMO-RAO (C.D. Cal., filed Jan. 25, 2019); Barton v. San
8
Juaquin, CV 19-4831-FMO-RAO (C.D. Cal., filed June 3, 2019); Barton v. Gastelo,
9
CV 19-6535-FMO (RAO) (C.D. Cal., filed July 29, 2019); Barton v. Superior Court,
10
CV 19-7382-FMO (RAO) (C.D. Cal., filed Aug. 26, 2019); Barton v. Superior Court,
11
CV 19-9516-FMO (RAO) (C.D. Cal., filed Nov. 5, 2019).
12
On January 22, 2020, Magistrate Judge Oliver held a hearing in a separate
13
habeas matter brought by Petitioner. Dkt. No. 7, CV 19-10418-FMO (RAO) (C.D.
14
Cal.). At the hearing, Judge Oliver discussed with Petitioner his numerous habeas
15
filings and explained to Petitioner that his two pending petitions, including the
16
Petition in the instant matter, would likely be dismissed for failure to exhaust.
17
Petitioner did not contend at the hearing that he has exhausted any of his habeas
18
claims in the California state court.
19
II. DISCUSSION
20
Under Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States
21
District Courts, the Court may dismiss a petition “[i]f it plainly appears from the
22
petition and any attached exhibits that the petitioner is not entitled to relief in the
23
district court.” The “Ninth Circuit has held that a federal court may raise the failure
24
to exhaust issue sua sponte and may summarily dismiss on that ground.” White v.
25
Paramo, Case No. CV 16-03531-ODW (KES), 2016 WL 3034669, at *2 (C.D. Cal.
26
27
Cir. 2012) (noting that a court may take judicial notice of federal and state court
28 records).
1 May 27, 2016) (citing Granberry v. Greer, 481 U.S. 129, 134-35, 107 S. Ct. 1671,
95 L. Ed. 2d 119 (1987); Stone v. San Francisco, 968 F.2d 850, 856 (9th Cir. 1992);
2
Cartwright v. Cupp, 650 F.2d 1103, 1104 (9th Cir. 1982) (per curiam)) (dismissing
3
petition for failure to exhaust state remedies with respect to sole claim for relief).
4
A state prisoner must exhaust his state court remedies before a federal court
5
may consider granting habeas corpus relief. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(1)(A); O’Sullivan
6
v. Boerckel, 526 U.S. 838, 842, 119 S. Ct. 1728, 144 L. Ed. 2d. 1 (1999). To satisfy
7
the exhaustion requirement, a habeas petitioner must fairly present his federal claims
8
in the state courts in order to give the State the opportunity to pass upon and correct
9
alleged violations of the prisoner’s federal rights. Duncan v. Henry, 513 U.S. 364,
10
365, 115 S. Ct. 887, 130 L. Ed. 2d 865 (1995) (per curiam). A habeas petitioner must
11
give the state courts “one full opportunity” to decide a federal claim by carrying out
12
“one complete round” of the state’s appellate process in order to properly exhaust a
13
claim. O’Sullivan, 526 U.S. at 845. He must present his claims to the highest state
14
court with jurisdiction to consider it or demonstrate that no state remedy remains
15
available. Peterson v. Lampert, 319 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc).
16
Here, the records of the California Supreme Court do not reflect any appeals
17
or habeas petitions filed by Petitioner. Although the exhaustion requirement may be
18
excused under limited circumstances, see 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(1)(B)(i)-(ii), none of
19
these circumstances appear to exist here. Petitioner has failed to exhaust his claim in
20
state court, and summary dismissal of this action is appropriate.
21
Dismissal of the Petition is without prejudice to Petitioner’s later pursuing
22
habeas relief in federal court upon exhausting available remedies in the state courts.
23
Petitioner is warned, however, that under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1), “[a] 1-year period
24
of limitations shall apply to an application for a writ of habeas corpus by a person in
25
custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court.”
26
///
27
///
28
1 III. CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY
Under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, a state
2
prisoner seeking to appeal a district court’s final order in a habeas corpus proceeding
3
must obtain a Certificate of Appealability (“COA”) from the district judge or a circuit
4
judge. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A). A COA may issue “only if the applicant has made
5
a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2).
6
“A petitioner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that jurists of reason could
7
disagree with the district court’s resolution of his constitutional claims or that jurists
8
could conclude the issues presented are adequate to deserve encouragement to
9
proceed further.” Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 327, 123 S. Ct. 1029, 154 L.
10
Ed. 2d 931 (2003).
11
When the Court dismisses a petition on procedural grounds, it must issue a
12
COA if the petitioner shows: (1) “that jurists of reason would find it debatable
13
whether the petition states a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional right”; and
14
(2) “that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the district court was
15
correct in its procedural ruling.” Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 478, 120 S. Ct.
16
1595, 146 L. Ed. 2d 542 (2000).
17
Here, the Court is summarily dismissing the instant Petition without prejudice
18
because the Court has determined that Petitioner has failed to exhaust his habeas
19
claim in state court. The Court finds that Petitioner cannot make the requisite
20
showing that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the district court was
21
correct in its procedural ruling.
22
///
23
///
24
///
25
///
26
///
27
///
28
1 IV. ORDER
2 Based on the foregoing, IT IS ORDERED THAT:
3 1. The Petition is DISMISSED without prejudice; and
4 2. A Certificate of Appealability is DENIED.
5
6 || DATED: January 31, 2020
7 /s/
FERNANDO M. OLGUIN
8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
9 || Presented by:
Reylla , Q2~
12 || ROZELLA A. OLIVER
3 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28