habeas 4 petitioner must give the state courts “one full opportunity” to decide a federal claim 5 by carrying out “one complete round” of the state’s appellate process
How later courts described this case
- habeas 4 petitioner must give the state courts “one full opportunity” to decide a federal claim 5 by carrying out “one complete round” of the state’s appellate process
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
1
2
3
4
5
6
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
7
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
9
10 ANTONIO QUARTERMAN, Case No. 5:21-cv-1549-AB-MAR
11 Petitioner,
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
12 v. DISMISSING THE ACTION
13 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
14 COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO,
15 Respondent.
16
17
18 I.
19 INTRODUCTION
On September 3, 2021, Petitioner, proceeding pro se, constructively filed1
20
a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (“Petition”) by a Person in State Custody
21
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. ECF Docket No. (“Dkt.”) 1. For the reasons set forth
22
below, the action is DISMISSED with prejudice.
23
///
24
///
25
///
26
27
1 Under the “mailbox rule,” when a pro se inmate gives prison authorities a pleading to mail to
1 II.
2 BACKGROUND
3 On June 24, 2020, Petitioner was arraigned on two (2) counts of assault by
4 means of force likely to produce great bodily injury (Cal. Pen. Code § 245(a)(4)) with
5 an enhancement for inflicting great bodily injury during the commission of a felony
6 (Cal. Pen. Code §§ 12022.7(a)). “Hearings,” FSB20001936, The People of the State of
7 California vs. Antonio Alexander Quarterman, Superior Court of California, County
8 of San Bernardino, available at https://cap.sb-court.org/ (last visited September 14,
9 2021). The charges concern events that allegedly took place on June 11, 2020. Id.
10 (under “Charges, Dispositions, and Pleas”). Petitioner’s criminal proceedings were
11 suspended after the trial court declared a doubt as to Petitioner’s competency. Id.
12 (under “Case Information” and “Events and Hearings”). Petitioner remains detained
13 at West Valley Detention Center in Rancho Cucamonga, California. Dkt. 1 at 2.
14 On February 12, 2021, Petitioner constructively filed a habeas petition with this
15 Court (“First Petition”). Quarterman v. California, No. 5:21-CV-338-AB (MAR),
16 2021 WL 3930314, at *1–2 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 27, 2021), report and recommendation
17 adopted, No. 5:21-CV-338-AB (MAR), 2021 WL 3930318 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 2, 2021).
18 The First Petition contained a variety of constitutional challenges to Plaintiff’s arrest
19 and criminal proceedings. Id. On September 2, 2021, the Court dismissed the
20 petition for failure to exhaust state remedies and pursuant to the abstention doctrine.
21 Id. *2–7.
22 On the same day, September 2, 2021, Petitioner constructively filed the instant
23 Petition. Dkt. 1. Though not entirely clear, the Petition appears to make many of the
24 same arguments from the First Petition, as well as the additional argument that the
25 superior court lacks jurisdiction to try Petitioner because the statute of limitations for
26 his charges has expired. Id. at 3–5. Petitioner’s statute of limitations claim is not
27 cognizable on federal habeas review. Furthermore, to the extent Petitioner brings any
1 cognizable claims, the claims appear unexhausted and subject to dismissal pursuant to
2 the abstention doctrine. Therefore, the action must be DISMISSED.
3 III.
4 STANDARD OF REVIEW
5 The Court may dismiss a habeas petition “[i]f it plainly appears from the
6 petition and any attached exhibits that the petitioner is not entitled to relief in the
7 district court.” Rule 4, Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases; Rule 1(b), Rules
8 Governing Section 2254 Cases (“The district court may apply any or all of these rules
9 to a habeas corpus petition not [under section 2254]”).
10 IV.
11 DISCUSSION
12 A. PETITIONER DOES NOT STATE A COGNIZABLE HABEAS
13 CLAIM
14 1. Applicable law
15 To establish that federal habeas relief is warranted, Petitioner must show that
16 there was a violation of the United States Constitution, federal laws, or treaties of the
17 United States. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a).
18 2. Analysis
19 Petitioner appears to argue that the superior court is without jurisdiction to try
20 him because the statute of limitations has expired on the crimes he has been charged
21 with. Id. at 3–5. Petitioner only cites California statutes and case law. Id.
22 Accordingly, Petitioner’s claim appears to be based entirely on state law and therefore
23 is not cognizable on federal habeas review.
24 B. PETITIONER’S CLAIMS APPEAR UNEXHAUSTED
25 1. Applicable law
26 Although there is no statutory exhaustion requirement for section 2241 actions,
27 federal courts have imposed a prudential exhaustion requirement. See Ward v.
1 petitioner has “fairly presented” his claims to the state courts in accordance with the
2 state's procedures, including the California Courts of Appeal and, ultimately, the
3 California Supreme Court. O’Sullivan v. Boerckel, 526 U.S. 838, 845 (1999) (habeas
4 petitioner must give the state courts “one full opportunity” to decide a federal claim
5 by carrying out “one complete round” of the state’s appellate process). “To exhaust a
6 habeas claim properly, a petitioner must present his claim to the state supreme court
7 even if that court’s review is discretionary. Because California's established, normal
8 appellate review procedure is a two-tiered system, [the California state inmate-
9 petitioner] was required to exhaust his habeas claims in a petition for review to the
10 California Supreme Court.” Gatlin v. Madding, 189 F.3d 882, 888 (9th Cir. 1999).
11 2. Analysis
12 Petitioner admits he has not presented his claims to the California Supreme
13 Court. Dkt. 1 at 6. Accordingly, Petitioner’s claims appear unexhausted and subject
14 to dismissal.
15 C. THE PETITION APPEARS SUBJECT TO DISMISSAL PURSUANT
16 TO THE DOCTRINE OF ABSTENTION
17 1. Applicable law
18 Principles of comity and federalism require federal courts to abstain from
19 interfering with pending state court proceedings. See Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37,
20 43–45 (1971). The Ninth Circuit has held abstention is appropriate when: (1) there is
21 “an ongoing state judicial proceeding”; (2) the proceeding “implicate[s] important
22 state interests”; (3) there is “an adequate opportunity in the state proceedings to raise
23 constitutional challenges”; and (4) the requested relief “seek[s] to enjoin” or has “the
24 practical effect of enjoining” the ongoing state judicial proceeding. Arevalo v.
25 Hennessy, 882 F.3d 763, 765 (9th Cir. 2018) (citing ReadyLink Healthcare, Inc. v.
26 State Comp. Ins. Fund, 754 F.3d 754, 758 (9th Cir. 2014)).
27 “Extraordinary circumstances,” may warrant exception to the “fundamental
1 U.S. at 46, 53–54; Brown v. Ahern, 676 F.3d 899, 900–01 (9th Cir. 2012) (holding
2 “abstention principles ... prohibit a federal court from considering a pre-conviction
3 habeas petition that seeks preemptively to litigate an affirmative constitutional defense
4 unless the petitioner can demonstrate that ‘extraordinary circumstances’ warrant
5 federal intervention.” (citing Carden v. State of Mont., 626 F.2d 82, 83 (9th Cir.
6 1980))).
7 2. Analysis
8 Here, like the claims in the First Petition, Petitioner’s claims appear to interfere
9 with his ongoing state court proceedings. See Quarterman v. California, 2021 WL
10 3930314, at *3. As this Court explained in Petitioner’s First Petition:
11 Here, all four (4) Younger abstention criteria are satisfied. First, Petitioner
is awaiting trial on his charges and therefore has an “ongoing state judicial
12
proceeding.” Second, the resolution of state criminal proceedings clearly
13 implicates important state interests. Third, Petitioner has “an adequate
opportunity in the state proceedings to raise constitutional challenges,”
14
either at the trial or appellate level, and there appears to be nothing to
15 prevent Petitioner from doing so. Fourth, habeas relief from this Court in
the form of release would have the “practical effect” of enjoining the state
16 court proceedings by releasing Petitioner prior to the adjudication of his
17 criminal case.
18 Quarterman v. California, 2021 WL 3930314 at *3 (internal footnote and
19 citations omitted). Furthermore, Plaintiff has not alleged in the instant Petition that
20 any extraordinary circumstances warrant federal intervention at this stage.
21 Accordingly, even if the Petition contained cognizable claims, the claims should be
22 dismissed pursuant to the doctrine of abstention.
23 ///
24 ///
25 ///
26 ///
27 ///
1 V.
2 ORDER
| 3 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED THAT Petitioner’s Motion is DENIED
4 | and the Petition is DISMISSED with prejudice.
> | Dated: September 21, 2021 (yd
| ° HONORABLE ANDRE BIROTTE; □□□
7 United States District Judge
l 3
Presented by:
| 9 2 SS
'0 MARGOAROCCONT.
11 | United States Magistrate Judge
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22.
23
24
25
26
27
28