Solis v. State of Washington

— 1 — — 2 — — 3 — — 4 — — 5 — 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON — 8 — — 9 — JONPAUL V. SOLIS, 10 2:19-cv-168-SAB Petitioner, — 11 — v. ORDER SUMMARILY — 12 — DISMISSING HABEAS 13 PETITION STATE OF WASHINGTON, — 14 — Respondent. — 15 — — 16 — 17 Petitioner, a prisoner at the Coyote Ridge Corrections Center, brings this 18 pro se Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person in State Custody pursuant to — 19 — 28 U.S.C. § 2254 . The $5.00 filing fee has been paid. 20 PROPER RESPONDENT 21 An initial defect with the Petition is that it fails to name a proper party as a 22 respondent. The proper respondent in a federal petition seeking habeas corpus 23 relief is the person having custody of the petitioner. Rumsfeld v. Padilla, 542 U.S. 24 426 (2004); Stanley v. Cal. Supreme Court, 21 F.3d 359, 360 (9th Cir. 1994). If the 25 petitioner is incarcerated, the proper respondent is generally the warden of the 26 institution where the petitioner is incarcerated. See Ortiz-Sandoval v. Gomez, 81 27 F.3d 891 (9th Cir. 1996). Failure to name a proper respondent deprives federal 28 courts of personal jurisdiction. See Stanley, 21 F.3d at 360 . 1 EXHAUSTION REQUIREMENT 2 Petitioner challenges his 2018 Spokane County guilty plea to first-degree 3 rape of a child and first-degree child molestation. He was sentenced to 120 4 months’ incarceration. Petitioner indicates that he did not appeal from the 5 judgment of conviction. ECF No. 1 at 2. 6 In his grounds for relief, Petitioner argues that the State of Washington has 7 no jurisdiction to decide federal constitutional matters. ECF No. 1 at 5-12. It has 8 long been settled that state courts are competent to decide questions arising under 9 the U.S. Constitution. See Baker v. Grice, 169 U.S. 284, 291 (1898) (“It is the duty 10 of the state court, as much as it is that of the federal courts, when the question of 11 the validity of a state statute is necessarily involved, as being in alleged violation 12 of any provision of the federal constitution, to decide that question, and to hold the 13 law void if it violate that instrument.”); see also Worldwide Church of God v. 14 McNair, 805 F.2d 888, 891 (9th Cir. 1986) (holding that state courts are as 15 competent as federal courts to decide federal constitutional matters). Therefore, 16 Petitioner’s arguments to the contrary lack merit. 17 Additionally, before a federal court may grant habeas relief to a state 18 prisoner, the prisoner must exhaust the state court remedies available to him. 28 19 U.S.C. § 2254 (b); Baldwin v. Reese, 541 U.S. 27 (2004). Exhaustion generally 20 requires that a prisoner give the state courts an opportunity to act on his claims 21 before he presents those claims to a federal court. O’Sullivan v. Boerckel, 526 U.S. 22 838 (1999). A petitioner has not exhausted a claim for relief so long as the 23 petitioner has a right under state law to raise the claim by available procedure. See 24 id.; 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (c). 25 To meet the exhaustion requirement, the petitioner must have “fairly 26 present[ed] his claim in each appropriate state court (including a state supreme 27 court with powers of discretionary review), thereby alerting that court to the 28 federal nature of the claim.” Baldwin, 541 U.S. at 29 ; see also Duncan v. Henry, — 1 — 513 U.S. 364 , 365–66 (1995). A petitioner fairly presents a claim to the state court 2 by describing the factual or legal bases for that claim and by alerting the state court 3 “to the fact that the ... [petitioner is] asserting claims under the United States 4 Constitution.” Duncan, 513 U.S. at 365–366; see also Tamalini v. Stewart, 249 5 F.3d 895 , 898 (9th Cir. 2001) (same). Mere similarity between a claim raised in 6 state court and a claim in a federal habeas petition is insufficient. Duncan, 513 7 U.S. at 365–366. 8 Furthermore, to fairly present a claim, the petitioner “must give the state 9 courts one full opportunity to resolve any constitutional issues by invoking one 10 complete round of the State's established appellate review process.” O’Sullivan, 11 526 U.S. at 845. Once a federal claim has been fairly presented to the state courts, 12 the exhaustion requirement is satisfied. See Picard v. Connor, 404 U.S. 270 , 275 13 (1971). It appears from the face of the Petition and the attached documents that 14 Petitioner has not exhausted his state court remedies as to each of his grounds for 15 relief. Indeed, Petitioner affirmatively represents that he did not exhaust his state 16 court remedies. 17 GROUNDS FOR FEDERAL HABEAS RELIEF 18 Petitioner asserts that the Washington state constitution contradicts the 19 federal constitution regarding the Fifth Amendment right to “presentment or 20 indictment of a Grand Jury.” He claims “no bill of indictment” was brought against 21 him rendering his arrest, conviction and imprisonment illegal. 22 Petitioner seems to argue that because the state courts have defied “federally 23 established procedures and processes for the adjudication of crimes” only “a court 24 of federal jurisdiction” has jurisdictional authority over his claims. His bald 25 assertion that “due process of the law was ignored” is unsupported by his factual 26 allegations. 27 The United States Supreme Court stated long ago: “Prosecution by 28 information instead of by indictment is provided for by the laws of Washington. 1|| This is not a violation of the Federal Constitution.” See Gaines v. State of Washington, 277 U.S. 81, 86 (1928). Consequently, Petitioner’s assertions to the contrary presented in his four grounds for federal habeas relief are legally frivolous. 5 Because it plainly appears from the petition and accompanying documents that Petitioner is not entitled to relief in this Court, IT IS ORDERED the petition, ECF No. 1, is DISMISSED pursuant to Rule 4, Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts. 9 IT IS SO ORDERED. The Clerk of Court is directed to enter this Order, 10)| enter judgment, provide copies to Petitioner, and close the file. The Court certifies that pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915 (a)(3), an appeal from this decision could not be 12|| taken in good faith, and there is no basis upon which to issue a certificate of 13]| appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253 (c); Fed. R. App. P. 22(b). A certificate of appealability is therefore DENIED. 15 DATED this 15" day of August 2019. — 1 — — 17 — — 18 — — 19 — — 2 — — 21 — 2 Joa Sfoecley Ges toa 5 Stanley A. Bastian 05 United States District Judge — 2 — — 27 — — 23 —