(HC) Lasher v. Fresno County Court
1:14-cv-00270
E.D. Cal.Mar 3, 2014Background
- Lasher, a state prisoner, filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. §2254 in the Eastern District of California.
- The petition was filed on February 18, 2014 in Sacramento, then transferred to the Fresno Division on February 27, 2014.
- A preliminary review shows the petition contains only unexhausted state-court claims.
- Lasher alleges sentencing occurred on February 6, 2014, before filing, and was told by the sentencing judge to file a federal petition to challenge the arrest warrant.
- The court concludes Lashner has not begun, much less completed, the state-exhaustion process and dismisses the petition for lack of exhaustion.
- The court orders the Clerk to assign a United States District Judge to the case and recommends dismissal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the petition should be dismissed for lack of exhaustion | Lasher asserts he has not exhausted state remedies. | The petition should be dismissed for failure to exhaust. | Dismissal for lack of exhaustion. |
| Whether the petition can be stayed/held in abeyance pending exhaustion | Not stated as an active option here. | Abeyance is not available when no exhausted claims exist. | Petition cannot be stayed; must be dismissed. |
| Whether Lashner fairly presented federal claims to the California courts | Not presented to California Supreme Court as federal claims. | Exhaustion requires presenting the federal basis to the state courts. | Not exhausted; dismissed. |
| Whether the court can consider unexhausted claims given the out-of-state warrant issue | Petitioner seeks relief on the warrant issue. | Court cannot address claims not exhausted in state court. | Cannot consider unexhausted claims; must dismiss. |
Key Cases Cited
- Duncan v. Henry, 513 U.S. 364 (Supreme Court 1995) (need to present federal claims to state courts to exhaust)
- Picard v. Connor, 404 U.S. 270 (Supreme Court 1971) (exhaustion requires fair presentation of federal claims)
- Johnson v. Zenon, 88 F.3d 828 (9th Cir. 1996) (must alert state court to federal nature of claims)
- Lyons v. Crawford, 232 F.3d 666 (9th Cir. 2000) (petitioner must identify federal basis of claims)
- Hiivala v. Wood, 195 F.3d 1098 (9th Cir. 1999) (federal basis must be explicit even if obvious)
- Shumway v. Payne, 223 F.3d 982 (9th Cir. 2000) (state prisoner must alert that claims are federal in nature)
- Raspberry v. Garcia, 448 F.3d 1150 (9th Cir. 2006) (mixed petitions with only unexhausted claims cannot be held in abeyance)
- Calderon v. United States Dist. Court, 107 F.3d 756 (9th Cir. 1997) (en banc; exhaustion rule applies to dismiss unexhausted petitions)
- Rose v. Lundy, 455 U.S. 509 (Supreme Court 1982) (requires dismissal of mixed petitions for failure to exhaust)