Opinion
EDCV 20-1945-JAK (KK)
01-29-2021
STANLEY KEITH WILLIAMS, Petitioner, v. PATRICK COVELLO, Warden, Respondent.
FINAL REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
HONORABLE KENLY KIYA KATO UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
This Final Report and Recommendation is submitted to the Honorable John A. Kronstadt, United States District Judge, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636 and General Order 05-07 of the United States District Court for the Central District of California.
I. SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATION
Petitioner Stanley Keith Williams (“Williams”) has filed a pro se Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (“Petition”) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging his 2018 convictions for lewd acts upon a child under the age of fourteen and unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor under the age of sixteen. ECF Docket No. (“Dkt.”) 1, Pet. at 2, 15, 41. Respondent filed a Motion to Dismiss arguing the Petition should be dismissed based on Williams' failure to exhaust and failure to present a cognizable claim. Dkt. 7-1 at 2-5. For the reasons below, the Court recommends the Petition be dismissed for lack of exhaustion.
II. PROCEDURAL HISTORY A. STATE COURT PROCEEDINGS
On February 26, 2018, following a jury trial in the San Bernardino County Superior Court, Williams was found guilty of committing lewd acts upon a child under the age of fourteen in violation of section 288(a) of the California Penal Code (“Counts 1 and 2”); committing lewd acts upon a child under the age of fourteen in violation of section 288(c)(1) of the California Penal Code (“Counts 3 and 4”); and having unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor under the age of sixteen by someone over the age of twenty-one in violation of section 261.5(d) of the California Penal Code (“Count 5”). Lodgs. 1 at 274-80; 2 at 5-8. The same jury found true the allegations that pursuant to sections 667.61(a)/(d) and 1170.12(a) through (d) of the California Penal Code, Williams had sustained a prior conviction for committing a lewd act upon a child under the age of fourteen in violation of section 288(a) of the California Penal Code. Lodg. 1 at 280-81.
The Court's citations to Lodged Documents refer to documents lodged in support of Respondent's October 19, 2020 Motion to Dismiss. See dkt. 8. Respondent identifies the documents in dkt. 8, as follows:
On April 20, 2018, the trial court sentenced Williams to 110 years and eight months to life in prison. Lodg. 2 at 3-4.
Williams appealed to the California Court of Appeal, claiming the trial court erred by denying bifurcation of the prior strike conviction in violation of state law. Lodg. 5 at 16-31. On October 21, 2019, the California Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment. Lodg. 8.
Williams filed a petition for review in the California Supreme Court, arguing again the trial court erred by denying bifurcation of the strike prior conviction in violation of state law. Lodg. 9 at 16-31. On January 2, 2020, the California Supreme Court denied the petition for review. Lodg. 10.
Williams did not file a habeas petition in state court. See dkt. 1, Pet at 3.
B. FEDERAL HABEAS PETITION
On September 2, 2020, Williams constructively filed the instant Petition challenging his 2018 convictions. Dkt. 1, Pet. The Petition presents the following two claims:
Under the “mailbox rule, ” when a pro se prisoner gives prison authorities a pleading to mail to court, the Court deems the pleading constructively filed on the date it is signed. Roberts v. Marshall, 627 F.3d 768, 770 n.1 (9th Cir. 2010).
1. “The trial court violated [Williams'] due process rights by denying bifurcation of the strike prior convictions” (“Claim One”); and
2. “The trial court committed per se structural error by denying [Williams'] right to a jury bifurcation on the grounds that ‘it was a waste of time['] and presented ‘minimal inconvenience'” (“Claim Two”).Id. at 5, 73-76.
On October 19, 2020, Respondent filed a Motion to Dismiss (“Motion”) arguing the Petition should be dismissed based on Williams' failure to exhaust his claims and failure to present a cognizable claim on federal habeas corpus review. Dkt. 7-1 at 2-5. On November 17, 2020, Williams constructively filed an opposition to Respondent's Motion. Dkt. 12.
On December 16, 2020, the Court issued a Report and Recommendation that the Petition be dismissed for lack of exhaustion. Dkt. 13.
On January 11, 2021, Williams constructively filed Objections to the original Report and Recommendation, arguing he is entitled to a stay pursuant to Rhines v. Weber, 544 U.S. 269 (2005) because “[t]here is good cause for [Williams'] failure to exhaust state remedies.” Dkt. 15 at 5. The Court herein issues a Final Report and Recommendation addressing Williams' Objections in Section III. B.
III. DISCUSSION
A. THE PETITION IS FULLY UNEXHAUSTED 1.Applicable Law
A state prisoner must exhaust his or her state court remedies before a federal court may consider granting habeas corpus relief. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(1)(A); O'Sullivan v. Boerckel, 526 U.S. 838, 842 (1999). To satisfy the exhaustion requirement, a petitioner must fairly present his or her federal claims in the state courts to give the state the opportunity to pass upon and correct alleged violations of the petitioner's federal rights. Duncan v. Henry, 513 U.S. 364, 365 (1995) (per curiam). A claim has been fairly presented if the petitioner has both “adequately described the factual basis for [the] claim” and “identified the federal legal basis for [the] claim.” Gatlin v. Madding, 189 F.3d 882, 888 (9th Cir. 1999)
To “fairly present” a federal claim to the state courts, a petitioner must alert the state courts to the fact that he is asserting a claim under the United States Constitution. Hiivala v. Wood, 195 F.3d 1098, 1106 (9th Cir. 1999) (citing Duncan, 513 U.S. at 365-66). The petitioner must reference specific provisions of the United States Constitution or federal statutes or cite to federal case law. Robinson v. Schriro, 595 F.3d 1086, 1101 (9th Cir. 2010), cert. denied, 562 U.S. 1037 (2010); Lyons v. Crawford, 232 F.3d 666, 670 (9th Cir. 2000), amended and superseded, 247 F.3d 904 (9th Cir. 2001). However, mere mention of the Constitution, or broad constitutional principles such as due process, equal protection, and the right to a fair trial, is insufficient. Fields v. Waddington, 401 F.3d 1018, 1021 (9th Cir. 2005), cert. denied, 546 U.S. 1037 (2005). In addition, the mere similarity between a claim of state and federal error is insufficient to establish exhaustion. Id. at 1022.
A petitioner must give the state courts “one full opportunity” to decide a federal claim by carrying out “one complete round” of the state's appellate process to properly exhaust a claim. O'Sullivan, 526 U.S. at 845. For a petitioner in California custody, this generally means the petitioner must have fairly presented his or her claims in a petition to the California Supreme Court. See id. (interpreting 28 U.S.C. § 2254(c)); Gatlin, 189 F.3d at 888 (applying O'Sullivan to California).
2. Analysis
Having carefully reviewed the claim raised in the petition for review in the California Supreme Court and compared it to the claims asserted in the instant federal Petition, it is apparent Williams failed to raise either of his claims for federal habeas relief to the California Supreme Court.
In the instant Petition, Williams asserts the trial court violated his Fourteenth Amendment due process rights and Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial by failing to bifurcate the prior strike allegations. Pet. at 73-76. While Williams filed a direct appeal of his conviction challenging the trial court's failure to bifurcate, neither his appeal to the California Court of Appeal nor his petition for review in the California Supreme Court raised this issue as one of federal law. See lodgs. 5, 7, 9. Rather, Williams challenged the trial court's refusal to bifurcate solely on the grounds of state law, including sections 352, 1101 and 1108 of the California Evidence Code. Lodgs. 5 at 16-31; 9 at 16-3. Williams made no reference to a specific provision of the federal constitution, a federal statute, or federal case law in his appeal to the California Court of Appeal or his petition for review in the California Supreme Court. See lodgs. 5, 7, 9. The petition for review does not even mention broad constitutional principles such as due process. See lodg. 9. Finally, the mere similarity between Williams' claims of state and federal error, i.e. that both involve challenges to the trial court's refusal to bifurcate the strike allegations, are insufficient to establish exhaustion. Wood, 195 F.3d at 1106.
Williams does cite state cases that reference both state and federal issues in his appeal to the California Court of Appeal and petition for review in the California Supreme Court. Lodgs. 5 at 3-4; 7 at 3; 9 at 3-4. These citations alone, however, are insufficient to exhaust his claims. See Fields, 401 F.3d at 1022; Casey v. Moore, 386 F.3d 896, 912-13 n.13 (9th Cir. 2004), cert. denied, 545 U.S. 1146 (2005) (finding a citation to a state case discussing both state and federal issues, with no textual mention of a federal claim in petitioner's brief, did not fairly present to the state court of appeals the federal claim asserted in federal habeas proceedings).
Hence, the state courts have not had “one full opportunity” to decide the claims Williams seeks to raise in the instant Petition. See O'Sullivan, 526 U.S. at 845; Gatlin, 189 F.3d at 888. Accordingly, the wholly unexhausted Petition is subject to dismissal.
B. A RHINES STAY SHOULD BE DENIED BECAUSE WILLIAMS HAS NOT SHOWN GOOD CAUSE
1. Applicable Law
Under Rhines, a district court has discretion to stay a mixed or wholly unexhausted petition to allow a petitioner time to present his or her unexhausted claims to state courts. 544 U.S. at 276; see Mena v. Long, 813 F.3d 907, 912 (9th Cir. 2016) (holding a district court has the discretion to stay and hold in abeyance fully unexhausted petitions under the circumstances set forth in Rhines). This stay and abeyance procedure is called a “Rhines stay” and is available only when: (1) there is “good cause” for the failure to exhaust; (2) each unexhausted claim is not “plainly meritless;” and (3) the petitioner did not intentionally engage in dilatory litigation tactics. Rhines, 544 U.S. at 277-78. The “good cause” inquiry is centered on “whether the petitioner can set forth a reasonable excuse, supported by sufficient evidence, ” to justify his failure to exhaust the unexhausted claim in state court. Blake v. Baker, 745 F.3d 977, 982 (9th Cir. 2014).
2. Analysis
In his opposition to Respondent's Motion, Williams asks this Court to grant a Rhines stay if the Court decides his claims have not been fully exhausted. Dkt. 12 at 3. In his Objections to the original Report and Recommendation, Williams argues his “failure to exhaust is due to ineffective assistance of postconviction counsel.” Dkt. 15 at 5-6. While ineffective assistance “by post-conviction counsel can be good cause for a Rhines stay, ” a bare allegation of state postconviction ineffective assistance of counsel is insufficient. Blake, 745 F.3d at 983. Without providing more, Williams' conclusory claim of ineffective assistance of counsel fails to set forth any “reasonable excuse, supported by sufficient evidence” to justify his failure to exhaust Claims One and Two. See Blake, 745 F.3d at 982. Accordingly, Williams fails to demonstrate good cause to support a Rhines stay. See Rhines, 544 U.S. at 277.
IV. RECOMMENDATION
IT IS THEREFORE RECOMMENDED that the Court issue an Order: (1) accepting this Final Report and Recommendation; (2) GRANTING Respondent's Motion to Dismiss; (3) DENYING Williams' request for a Rhines stay; and (4) DISMISSING the Petition without prejudice.
1. Clerk's Transcript Volume 1 (“Lodg. 1”)
2. Clerk's Transcript Volume 2 (“Lodg. 2”)
3. Reporter's Transcript Volume 1 (“Lodg. 3”)
4. Reporter's Transcript Volume 2 (“Lodg. 4”)
5. Appellant's Opening Brief filed in California Court of Appeal case number E070452 (“Lodg. 5”)
6. Respondent's Brief filed in California Court of Appeal case number E070452 (“Lodg. 6”)
7. Reply Brief filed in California Court of Appeal case number E070452 (“Lodg. 7”)
8. Opinion filed in California Court of Appeal case number E070452 (“Lodg. 8”)
9. Petition for Review filed in California Supreme Court case number S259285 (“Lodg. 9”)
10. Order denying Petition for Review in California Supreme Court case number S259285 (“Lodg. 10”)