(HC) Reed v. Murphy
1:14-cv-00208
E.D. Cal.Feb 26, 2014Background
- Reed, a state prisoner, challenges a June 17, 2013 conviction for second‑degree robbery under 28 U.S.C. §2254.
- The petition was addressed to Fresno County Superior Court but filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California.
- Reed claims he sought review from the California Court of Appeal, but the appeal was withdrawn and not decided.
- Rule 4 requires preliminary screening and potential dismissal if no relief is possible; Rule 5 governs respondent filing.
- Exhaustion requires Reed to have presented his federal claims to the highest state court with a full and fair opportunity to review them.
- The court finds Reed has not shown that his claims were presented to the California Supreme Court, and therefore the merits cannot be reached at this time.
- Reed is ordered to show cause within 30 days why the petition should not be dismissed for failure to exhaust state remedies.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Has Reed properly exhausted state remedies? | Reed argues state‑court review was pursued. | Reed has not shown presentation to the California Supreme Court. | Not exhausted; must present to CA Supreme Court. |
| What must Reed provide to demonstrate exhaustion? | Provide evidence of claims presented to the California Supreme Court. | Provide copies of petitions and any CA Supreme Court rulings. | Petition fails without CA Supreme Court submission or copies. |
Key Cases Cited
- Coleman v. Thompson, 501 U.S. 722 (U.S. 1991) (exhaustion requires opportunity to correct violations in state court)
- Rose v. Lundy, 455 U.S. 509 (U.S. 1982) (story of total exhaustion and return to federal court if not exhausted)
- Buffalo v. Sunn, 854 F.2d 1158 (9th Cir. 1988) (Ninth Circuit on exhaustion principles)
- Duncan v. Henry, 513 U.S. 364 (U.S. 1995) (requires full and fair presentation of federal claims in state court)
- Picard v. Connor, 404 U.S. 270 (U.S. 1971) (exhaustion means fairly presenting federal claims to state courts)
- Johnson v. Zenon, 88 F.3d 828 (9th Cir. 1996) (federal basis must be explicitly presented to state court)
- Lyons v. Crawford, 232 F.3d 666 (9th Cir. 2000) (petitioner must alert state court to federal nature of claims)
- Hiivala v. Wood, 195 F.3d 1098 (9th Cir. 1999) (federal basis must be explicit even if obvious)