Michael Jenkins v. Alex Villanueva
2:21-cv-07943
| C.D. Cal. | Oct 13, 2021Background
- Petitioner Michael Jenkins filed a 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition (Oct. 4, 2021) challenging denial of Proposition 57 credits following his July 2020 no-contest plea to willfully inflicting corporal injury (Los Angeles County case PA094160-01) and a five-year sentence.
- The petition presents a single ground: he has not received credits under Prop 57, which he asserts violated his rights.
- Under Rule 4 of the Rules Governing § 2254 Cases, the Court performed a preliminary review and found the face of the petition suggests non-exhaustion of state remedies.
- The record shows no indication that Jenkins presented his Prop 57/federal claim to the California Supreme Court by petition for review or state habeas.
- The Court ordered Jenkins to show cause by October 29, 2021: either submit proof that the claim and its federal basis were presented to the California Supreme Court (copy of the petition for review or state habeas plus the California Supreme Court’s ruling) or explain why the petition should not be dismissed for failure to exhaust.
- As an alternative, the Court informed Jenkins he may voluntarily dismiss the federal petition without prejudice under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1); failure to respond would result in summary dismissal for failure to exhaust and/or prosecute.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Exhaustion of state remedies for Prop 57 credit claim | Jenkins contends he was denied credits and seeks federal habeas relief | No record that Jenkins presented the federal claim to the California Supreme Court; state has not waived exhaustion | Court concluded the petition appears unexhausted and ordered Jenkins to show cause or face dismissal |
| Burden of proof for exhaustion | Jenkins must demonstrate exhaustion was completed | Respondent need not waive exhaustion; absence of state filing indicates non-exhaustion | Court placed burden on Jenkins to provide proof (petition for review or state habeas + CA Supreme Court ruling) |
| Voluntary dismissal under Rule 41 | Jenkins may elect dismissal to preserve state remedies | Respondent has not appeared, so Rule 41(a)(1) permits voluntary dismissal without prejudice | Court allowed voluntary dismissal option and directed clerk to provide a dismissal form |
Key Cases Cited
- Rose v. Lundy, 455 U.S. 509 (1982) (federal habeas requires exhaustion of available state remedies)
- O’Sullivan v. Boerckel, 526 U.S. 838 (1999) (claims must be fairly presented to state supreme court to satisfy exhaustion)
- Duncan v. Henry, 513 U.S. 364 (1995) (fair presentation requires stating operative facts and federal legal theory)
- Picard v. Connor, 404 U.S. 270 (1971) (state courts must be given opportunity to address federal claims)
- Sherwood v. Tomkins, 716 F.2d 632 (9th Cir. 1983) (pending state appeal or collateral challenge precludes exhaustion)
- Hendricks v. Vasquez, 908 F.2d 490 (9th Cir. 1990) (district courts may summarily dismiss plainly unmeritorious § 2254 petitions on preliminary review)