# William Barton v. Superior Court

> District Court, C.D. California · January 31, 2020

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10036916

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, C.D. California
- **Decided:** January 31, 2020
- **Opinion:** 100trialcourt
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10036916

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- noting that a court may take judicial notice of federal and state court 28 records

## Opinion text

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11 WILLIAM BARTON, Case No. CV 19-10418 FMO (RAO)

12 Petitioner,
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
13 v. RE SUMMARY DISMISSAL OF
PETITION FOR WRIT OF
14 SUPERIOR COURT, HABEAS CORPUS AND DENIAL
OF CERTIFICATE OF
15 Respondent. APPEALABILITY
16

17
I. BACKGROUND
18
On December 6, 2019, 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
Although Petitioner references a guilty plea and asserts that he is not guilty, the
22
Petition’s grounds for relief are not clear. Id. at 3. Records of the California Supreme
23
Court indicate that Petitioner has not filed any appeals or state habeas petitions with
24
that court.1
25

26 1 The Court takes judicial notice of the records of the California Supreme Court,
which are available at http://appellatecases.courtinfo.ca.gov. See Fed. R. Evid.
27
201(b)(2) (providing that a court may take judicial notice of adjudicative facts that
28 “can be accurately and readily determined from sources whose accuracy cannot
1 This Court has received multiple habeas petitions from Petitioner starting in
2 2018, all of which have been dismissed for failure to exhaust state court remedies.
3 See Barton v. People State of California, CV 18-5863-FMO-RAO (C.D. Cal., filed
4 July 3, 2018); Barton v. Superior Court, CV 18-6853-FMO-RAO (C.D. Cal., filed
5 Aug. 9, 2018); Barton v. Board of Parole Hearings, CV 18-9707-FMO-RAO (C.D.
6 Cal., filed Nov. 16, 2018); Barton v. People of the State of California, CV 19-546-
7 FMO-RAO (C.D. Cal., filed Dec. 28, 2018); Barton v. Clerk of U.S. District Court,
8 et al., CV 19-1178-FMO-RAO (C.D. Cal., filed Jan. 25, 2019); Barton v. San
9 Juaquin, CV 19-4831-FMO-RAO (C.D. Cal., filed June 3, 2019); Barton v. Gastelo,
10 CV 19-6535-FMO (RAO) (C.D. Cal., filed July 29, 2019); Barton v. Superior Court,
11 CV 19-7382-FMO (RAO) (C.D. Cal., filed Aug. 26, 2019); Barton v. Superior Court,
12 CV 19-9516-FMO (RAO) (C.D. Cal., filed Nov. 5, 2019).
13 Magistrate Judge Oliver held a hearing in this matter on January 22, 2020.
14 Dkt. No. 7. At the hearing, Judge Oliver discussed with Petitioner his numerous
15 habeas filings and explained to Petitioner that the instant Petition and another
16 pending petition would likely be dismissed for failure to exhaust. Petitioner did not
17 contend at the hearing that he has exhausted any of his habeas claims in the California
18 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
reasonably be questioned”); Harris v. Cty. of Orange, 682 F.3d 1126, 1131-32 (9th
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,
2 95 L. Ed. 2d 119 (1987); Stone v. San Francisco, 968 F.2d 850, 856 (9th Cir. 1992);
3 Cartwright v. Cupp, 650 F.2d 1103, 1104 (9th Cir. 1982) (per curiam)) (dismissing
4 petition for failure to exhaust state remedies with respect to sole claim for relief).
5 A state prisoner must exhaust his state court remedies before a federal court
6 may consider granting habeas corpus relief. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(1)(A); O’Sullivan
7 v. Boerckel, 526 U.S. 838, 842, 119 S. Ct. 1728, 144 L. Ed. 2d. 1 (1999). To satisfy
8 the exhaustion requirement, a habeas petitioner must fairly present his federal claims
9 in the state courts in order to give the State the opportunity to pass upon and correct
10 alleged violations of the prisoner’s federal rights. Duncan v. Henry, 513 U.S. 364,
11 365, 115 S. Ct. 887, 130 L. Ed. 2d 865 (1995) (per curiam). A habeas petitioner must
12 give the state courts “one full opportunity” to decide a federal claim by carrying out
13 “one complete round” of the state’s appellate process in order to properly exhaust a
14 claim. O’Sullivan, 526 U.S. at 845. He must present his claims to the highest state
15 court with jurisdiction to consider it or demonstrate that no state remedy remains
16 available. Peterson v. Lampert, 319 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc).
17 Here, the records of the California Supreme Court do not reflect any appeals
18 or habeas petitions filed by Petitioner. Although the exhaustion requirement may be
19 excused under limited circumstances, see 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(1)(B)(i)-(ii), none of
20 these circumstances appear to exist here. Petitioner has failed to exhaust his claim in
21 state court, and summary dismissal of this action is appropriate.
22 Dismissal of the Petition is without prejudice to Petitioner’s later pursuing
23 habeas relief in federal court upon exhausting available remedies in the state courts.
24 Petitioner is warned, however, that under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1), “[a] 1-year period
25 of limitations shall apply to an application for a writ of habeas corpus by a person in
26 custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court.”
27 ///
28 ///
1 III. CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY
2 Under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, a state
3 prisoner seeking to appeal a district court’s final order in a habeas corpus proceeding
4 must obtain a Certificate of Appealability (“COA”) from the district judge or a circuit
5 judge. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A). A COA may issue “only if the applicant has made
6 a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2).
7 “A petitioner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that jurists of reason could
8 disagree with the district court’s resolution of his constitutional claims or that jurists
9 could conclude the issues presented are adequate to deserve encouragement to
10 proceed further.” Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 327, 123 S. Ct. 1029, 154 L.
11 Ed. 2d 931 (2003).
12 When the Court dismisses a petition on procedural grounds, it must issue a
13 COA if the petitioner shows: (1) “that jurists of reason would find it debatable
14 whether the petition states a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional right”; and
15 (2) “that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the district court was
16 correct in its procedural ruling.” Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 478, 120 S. Ct.
17 1595, 146 L. Ed. 2d 542 (2000).
18 Here, the Court is summarily dismissing the instant Petition without prejudice
19 because the Court has determined that Petitioner has failed to exhaust his habeas
20 claim in state court. The Court finds that Petitioner cannot make the requisite
21 showing that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the district court was
22 correct in its procedural ruling.
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:
Rayeein a. QC

12 || ROZELLA A. OLIVER
3 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10036916. Public record. Not legal advice.