(HC) Yarber v. Placer County Superior Court
2:15-cv-01973
E.D. Cal.Sep 30, 2015Background
- Petitioner Kevin Yarber, a California state prisoner, challenges his Sept. 2014 conviction for corporal injury to a cohabitant (Cal. Penal Code § 273.5) and sentence.
- Yarber proceeds pro se and sought leave to proceed in forma pauperis; the court granted that request.
- His federal habeas petition asserts ineffective assistance of counsel (public defender John Mustapha allegedly recommended a nolo contendere plea), conflict of interest by the superior court reporter (Tiffany Huffman, sister of the alleged victim), Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference, and racial profiling.
- The petition was wholly unexhausted as to state remedies; Yarber had not presented these claims to the California Supreme Court.
- The court conducted the Rule 4 screening required for § 2254 petitions and dismissed the petition without prejudice for failure to exhaust state remedies, declined to issue a certificate of appealability, and directed the clerk to close the case.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Yarber's claims may proceed in federal habeas before exhausting state remedies | Yarber contends his federal constitutional claims merit federal review now | Respondent (state) argues Yarber has not exhausted available state remedies; exhaustion is required | Petition dismissed without prejudice as wholly unexhausted under § 2254 exhaustion doctrine |
| Whether the court should allow in forma pauperis status | Yarber asserted inability to pay filing costs | State has no opposition noted | Court granted in forma pauperis under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a) |
| Whether a certificate of appealability should issue | Yarber implicitly seeks appellate review if dismissed | State would argue dismissal for procedural exhaustion bars COA | Court declined to issue a certificate of appealability under 28 U.S.C. § 2253 |
| Whether the court can substitute the proper respondent | Yarber named Placer County Superior Court; rule requires custodian | Federal rules require naming the state custodian (warden) | Court substituted David B. Long, Warden, as respondent (noted in footnote) |
Key Cases Cited
- Rose v. Lundy, 455 U.S. 509 (1982) (federal habeas petitions must exhaust state remedies before federal review)
- Picard v. Connor, 404 U.S. 270 (1971) (exhaustion requires giving the highest state court a full and fair opportunity to consider claims)
- Rasberry v. Garcia, 448 F.3d 1150 (9th Cir. 2006) (completely unexhausted federal habeas petition must be dismissed without prejudice)
- Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971) (federal courts should abstain from interfering with pending state criminal proceedings)
- Smith v. Idaho, 392 F.3d 350 (9th Cir. 2004) (federal habeas petitions must name the state officer having custody)
- Middleton v. Cupp, 768 F.2d 1083 (9th Cir. 1985) (discussion of exhaustion and fair presentation principles)