Degfu v. Bennett

[3] 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 5 AT TACOMA 6 DEREJE ASRAT DEGFU, Case No. 2:24-cv-01275-JNW-TLF 7 Petitioner, v. ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE [8] JASON BENNETT, [9] Respondent. [10] 11 Petitioner Dereje Asrat Degfu is a state prisoner who is currently confined at the 12 Stafford Creek Corrections Center in Aberdeen, Washington, pursuant to a judgment 13 and sentence entered in King County Superior Court. Dkt. 3-1 at 1, 11. Petitioner 14 presents to the Court for filing a petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 15 2241 asserting that his King Superior Court sentence is invalid because former RCW 16 9.94A.507 is unconstitutional on its face and violates his Sixth Amendment right to a 17 jury trial. Id. at 6 . He seeks to have this Court review whether state law violates federal 18 law and to “issue an unconditional writ releasing [him] from custody.” Id. at 7 ; see also, 19 Memorandum, Dkt. 3-1 at 9-10. 20 Petitioner cites Castro v. United States, 540 U.S. 375 (2003) and objects to 21 having this Court review his case under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 . Dkt. 3-1 at 9-10. The Ninth 22 Circuit has held that “28 U.S.C. § 2254 is the exclusive vehicle for a habeas petition by 23 a state prisoner in custody pursuant to a state court judgment[.]” White v. Lambert, 370 24 F.3d 1002, 1009-10 (9th Cir. 2004), overruled on other grounds by Hayward v. Marshall, [1] 603 F.3d 546 (9th Cir. 2010) (en banc). The Castro holding, cited by petitioner, does not 2 apply in this situation because it was related to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 and whether the 3 federal district court improperly applied the successive petition rule. Under White v. 4 Lambert, the petition for writ of habeas corpus in this case is properly reviewed under § 5 2254. Id.; see Dominguez v. Kernan, 906 F.3d 1127, 1134-1137 (9th Cir. 2018) 6 (discussing the difference between cases properly brought under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 as 7 opposed to those properly brought under § 2254). 8 To obtain relief under § 2254, a petitioner must demonstrate that each of his 9 claims for federal habeas relief has been properly exhausted in the state courts. 28 10 U.S.C. § 2254 (b)-(c). The exhaustion requirement is a matter of comity, intended to 11 afford the state courts “an initial opportunity to pass upon and correct alleged violations 12 of its prisoners’ federal rights.” Picard v. Connor, 404 U.S. 270, 275 (1971) (internal 13 quotation marks and citations omitted). To provide the state courts with the requisite 14 opportunity to consider his federal claims, a prisoner must “fairly present” his claims to 15 each appropriate state court for review, including a state supreme court with powers of 16 discretionary review. Baldwin v. Reese, 541 U.S. 27, 29 (2004) (citing Duncan v. Henry, [17] 513 U.S. 364, 365 (1995), and O’Sullivan v. Boerckel, 526 U.S. 838, 845 (1999)). 18 In this case, petitioner makes clear that he has not presented the issue raised in 19 his petition to any state appellate court for review. Dkt. 3-1 at 6-7. Petitioner’s claim is 20 therefore unexhausted and not currently eligible for federal habeas review. Accordingly, 21 the Court hereby ORDERS as follows: 22 (1) Petitioner shall SHOW CAUSE, by October 25, 2024, why his petition and 23 this action should not be dismissed for failure to exhaust state court remedies. Failure to [24] 1 timely respond to this Order will result in a recommendation that this action be 2 dismissed. 3 (2) The Clerk is directed to NOTE this matter on the Court’s motion calendar 4 for October 25, 2024, for review of petitioner’s response to this Order to Show Cause. 5 (3) The Clerk is directed to RE-NOTE the motion to proceed in forma 6 pauperis (Dkt. 3) to October 25, 2024. 7 (4) The Clerk is directed to send copies of this Order to petitioner. [8] Dated this 25th day of September, 2024. [10] 11 A 12 Theresa L. Fricke United States Magistrate Judge