Jared Martin v. Superior Court of California
2:19-cv-10839
C.D. Cal.Oct 22, 2020Background
- Petitioner (pro se) filed a habeas petition construed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging rulings in his ongoing state criminal proceedings.
- Court identified procedural defects in the First Amended Petition (FAP): no filing fee or IFP request, nonstandard form, improper respondent, and potential Younger abstention.
- Petitioner filed a Second Amended Petition (SAP) on the proper CV-69 form and an IFP request; the Court granted IFP, and the SAP names the custodial warden as respondent.
- The SAP cures the fee, form, and personal-jurisdiction defects but appears to raise a separate problem: all claims are pending in the California Supreme Court.
- The Court determined the SAP appears wholly unexhausted under § 2254(b)(1)(A) and ordered Petitioner to show cause by November 21, 2020 why the Court should not recommend dismissal.
- The Court explained available responses: (1) voluntary dismissal, (2) motion for a Rhines stay with required showings, or (3) proof that claims are exhausted; failure to respond would prompt a recommendation of dismissal without prejudice and for failure to prosecute.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether procedural defects in FAP were cured | Munoz filed SAP on CV-69 and IFP request | Not raised | SAP + IFP cured fee, form, and personal-jurisdiction defects (Younger abstention left unresolved) |
| Whether the petition is exhausted | Munoz asserts he has presented claims to the CA Supreme Court but they remain pending | Not raised | Court finds petition appears wholly unexhausted because claims remain pending in state court |
| Whether court may raise exhaustion sua sponte and dismiss | N/A | N/A | Court may raise exhaustion sua sponte and summarily dismiss without prejudice for lack of exhaustion |
| Appropriate next steps/remedies available | Munoz may dismiss, seek Rhines stay, or prove exhaustion | Not raised | Court ordered show-cause response and outlined three permitted options; failure to respond will lead to recommendation of dismissal without prejudice and for failure to prosecute |
Key Cases Cited
- O'Sullivan v. Boerckel, 526 U.S. 838 (1999) (exhaustion requires fair presentation to the state’s highest court)
- Duncan v. Henry, 513 U.S. 364 (1995) (fair presentation requirement to give state an opportunity to address federal claims)
- Davis v. Silva, 511 F.3d 1005 (9th Cir. 2008) (claim fairly presented requires operative facts and federal legal theory)
- Gray v. Netherland, 518 U.S. 152 (1996) (discussion of fair presentation and exhaustion principles)
- Gatlin v. Madding, 189 F.3d 882 (9th Cir. 1999) (applies O'Sullivan exhaustion rule to California prisoners)
- Stone v. San Francisco, 968 F.2d 850 (9th Cir. 1992) (court may raise exhaustion sua sponte and dismiss without prejudice)
- Cartwright v. Cupp, 650 F.2d 1103 (9th Cir. 1981) (same)
- Rhines v. Weber, 544 U.S. 269 (2005) (stay-and-abeyance standard for mixed exhausted/unexhausted petitions)
- Smith v. Duncan, 297 F.3d 809 (9th Cir. 2002) (judicial notice of state court documents in federal habeas proceedings)
- Harris v. County of Orange, 682 F.3d 1126 (9th Cir. 2012) (courts may judicially notice documents filed in state courts)
- Pace v. DiGuglielmo, 544 U.S. 408 (2005) (addresses exhaustion/limitations interplay; cited for related procedural points)