Rocha v. State of Washington

1 U.S. FDILISETDR IINC TT HCEO URT 2 EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON Oct 28, 2019 [3] SEAN F. MCAVOY, CLERK [5] 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON [9] 10 ISABEL ROCHA, JR, 2:19-cv-185-SAB 11 Petitioner, 12 v. ORDER SUMMARILY 13 STATE OF WASHINGTON, DISMISSING HABEAS ACTION 14 Respondent. [16] 17 BEFORE THE COURT is Petitioner’s First Amended Petition under 28 18 U.S.C. § 2254 for Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person in State Custody. ECF No. 10. 19 Petitioner, a prisoner at the Coyote Ridge Corrections Center, is proceeding pro se 20 and in forma pauperis. Respondent has not been served. 21 PROPER RESPONDENT 22 An initial defect with the amended petition is that it fails to name a proper 23party as a respondent. The proper respondent in a federal petition seeking habeas 24corpus relief is the person having custody of the petitioner. Rumsfeld v. Padilla, 542 25U.S. 426 (2004); Stanley v. Cal. Supreme Court, 21 F.3d 359, 360 (9th Cir. 1994). If 26the petitioner is incarcerated, the proper respondent is generally the warden of the 27institution where the petitioner is incarcerated. See Ortiz-Sandoval v. Gomez, 81 F.3d 28 1891 (9th Cir. 1996). Failure to name a proper respondent deprives federal courts of 2personal jurisdiction. See Stanley, 21 F.3d at 360 . 3 EXHAUSTION REQUIREMENT 4 Petitioner challenges his 2018 Grant County guilty pleas to first-degree rape 5 of a child and first-degree child molestation. He was sentenced on January 16, 2019, 6 to 120 months’ incarceration. Petitioner provides no information regarding any 7 direct appeal. ECF No. 10 at 2. 8 In his grounds for relief, Petitioner argues that the State of Washington has no 9 jurisdiction to decide federal constitutional matters. ECF No. 10 at 5-12. It has long 10 been settled that state courts are competent to decide questions arising under the U.S. 11 Constitution. See Baker v. Grice, 169 U.S. 284, 291 (1898) (“It is the duty of the 12 state court, as much as it is that of the federal courts, when the question of the validity 13 of a state statute is necessarily involved, as being in alleged violation of any 14 provision of the federal constitution, to decide that question, and to hold the law void 15 if it violate that instrument.”); see also Worldwide Church of God v. McNair, 805 16 F.2d 888, 891 (9th Cir. 1986) (holding that state courts are as competent as federal 17 courts to decide federal constitutional matters). Therefore, Petitioner’s arguments 18 to the contrary lack merit. 19 Additionally, before a federal court may grant habeas relief to a state prisoner, 20 the prisoner must exhaust the state court remedies available to him. 28 U.S.C. 21 § 2254(b); Baldwin v. Reese, 541 U.S. 27 (2004). Exhaustion generally requires that 22 a prisoner give the state courts an opportunity to act on his claims before he presents 23 those claims to a federal court. O'Sullivan v. Boerckel, 526 U.S. 838 (1999). A 24 petitioner has not exhausted a claim for relief so long as the petitioner has a right 25 under state law to raise the claim by available procedure. See Id.; 28 U.S.C. 26 § 2254(c). 27 To meet the exhaustion requirement, the petitioner must have “fairly 28 present[ed] his claim in each appropriate state court (including a state supreme court 1 with powers of discretionary review), thereby alerting that court to the federal nature 2 of the claim.” Baldwin, 541 U.S. at 29 ; see also Duncan v. Henry, 513 U.S. 364 , 3 365–66 (1995). A petitioner fairly presents a claim to the state court by describing 4 the factual or legal bases for that claim and by alerting the state court “to the fact 5 that the ... [petitioner is] asserting claims under the United States Constitution.” 6 Duncan, 513 U.S. at 365–366; see also Tamalini v. Stewart, 249 F.3d 895, 898 (9th 7 Cir. 2001) (same). Mere similarity between a claim raised in state court and a claim 8 in a federal habeas petition is insufficient. Duncan, 513 U.S. at 365–366. 9 Furthermore, to fairly present a claim, the petitioner “must give the state 10 courts one full opportunity to resolve any constitutional issues by invoking one 11 complete round of the State's established appellate review process.” O'Sullivan, [12] 526 U.S. at 845 . Once a federal claim has been fairly presented to the state courts, 13 the exhaustion requirement is satisfied. See Picard v. Connor, 404 U.S. 270 , 275 14 (1971). It appears from the face of the Petition and the attached documents that 15 Petitioner has not exhausted his state court remedies as to each of his grounds for 16 relief. 17 GROUNDS FOR FEDERAL HABEAS RELIEF 18 Petitioner asserts that the Washington state constitution contradicts the federal 19 constitution regarding the Fifth Amendment right to “presentment or indictment of 20 a Grand Jury.” He claims “no bill of indictment” was brought against him rendering 21 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 As the U.S. Supreme Court stated long ago, “Prosecution by information 28 instead of by indictment is provided for by the laws of Washington. This is not a violation of the Federal Constitution.” See Gaines v. Washington, 277 U.S. 81, 8 (1928). There is no federal constitutional violation when a prosecuting attorney’ criminal information is substituted for the grand jury’s indictment. See Hurtado v. California, 110 U.S. 516 (1884) (rejecting the claim that an indictment is essenti: to due process of law and that a state violates the Fourteenth Amendment b prosecuting a defendant with a criminal information). Petitioner’s assertions to th contrary presented in his four grounds for federal habeas corpus relief are legall frivolous. Because it plainly appears from the First Amended Petition an 10] accompanying documents that Petitioner 1s not entitledto relief in this Court, IT ORDERED the First Amended Petition, ECF No. 10, is DISMISSED pursuant t 12] Rule 4, Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts. 1 IT IS SO ORDERED. The Clerk of Court is directed to enter this Order, 14| enter judgment, provide copies to Petitioner, and close the file. The Court certifie 14] that pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915 (a)(3), an appeal from this decision could not 14|taken in good faith, and there is no basis upon which to issue a certificate o 17| appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253 (c); Fed. R. App. P. 22(b). A certificate o 18] appealability is therefore DENIED. 1 DATED this 28th day of October 2019. [21] 2 # ; hy Esta Stanley A. Bastian 5 United States District Judge