United States District Court, C.D. California
ORDER DISMISSING ACTION WITHOUT PREJUDICE
D. WRIGHT II UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Court summarily dismisses this habeas action without
prejudice based on Petitioner's failure to exhaust his
claims in state court and for failure to state a legitimate
* * *
Petitioner is currently serving an eight-year term in state
prison following his nolo contendere plea for possessing
identifying information. Petitioner entered his plea and was
sentenced in 2016.
Petitioner seeks to present a variety of procedural claims on
federal habeas review. He also contends that his vision and
mental health problems give rise to a habeas claim under the
federal Americans with Disabilities Act.
Magistrate Judge Wilner screened the petition pursuant to
this Court's habeas rules. (Docket # 4.) Judge Wilner
observed that Petitioner previously raised some or all of his
claims in the California Court of Appeal. However, Petitioner
has not presented his claims in the California Supreme Court.
Judge Wilner informed Petitioner that exhaustion in the state
supreme court was a prerequisite to habeas review under
Additionally, Judge Wilner informed Petitioner that his
claims did not appear to state a cognizable violation of the
federal constitution that could conceivably give rise to
habeas relief. The magistrate judge then ordered Petitioner
to submit a further statement to respond to these issues.
Petitioner filed a brief submission. (Docket # 6.) Petitioner
explained that “the spirit led Petitioner to file the
petition” in federal court rather than in the state
supreme court. He then conclusorily claimed that his failure
to exhaust his claims properly should be excused because his
rights were violated in the lower state courts.
* * *
it “appears from the application that the applicant or
person detained is not entitled” to habeas relief, a
court may dismiss a habeas action without ordering service on
the responding party. 28 U.S.C. § 2243; see
also Rule 4 of Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in
United States District Courts (petition may be summarily
dismissed if petitioner plainly not entitled to relief);
Local Civil Rule 72-3.2 (magistrate judge may submit proposed
order for summary dismissal to district judge “if it
plainly appears from the face of the petition [ ] that the
petitioner is not entitled to relief”).
Dismissal of this action is appropriate on the grounds that
the magistrate judge identified. Under AEDPA (the federal law
that governs habeas petitions filed by state inmates), a
state prisoner must exhaust all claims as a prerequisite to a
federal court's consideration of a habeas corpus
petition. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(1)(A); Kyzar v.
Ryan, 780 F.3d 940, 946 (9th Cir. 2015). The prisoner
must fairly present those claims to the state's highest
court. Rose v. Lundy, 455 U.S. 509 (1982). A claim
has not been fairly presented unless the prisoner describes
in the state court proceedings both the operative facts and
federal legal theory on which his claim is based. Duncan
v. Henry, 513 U.S. 364, 370 (1995). Petitioner bears the
burden of demonstrating this prerequisite has been met.
Williams v. Craven, 460 F.2d 1253, 1254 (9th Cir.
Petitioner admits that he failed to present his claims to the
state supreme court before commencing his habeas action. The
claims are therefore subject to dismissal due to his failure
Further, Petitioner's bare assertion that he has ADA and
civil rights claims that must be reviewed in this federal
habeas action is untenable. An action under Section 2254
requires a prisoner to allege that he is in state custody
based on a conviction that involved a “decision that
was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of,
clearly established federal law, as determined by the Supreme
Court of the United States” - that is, a violation of
the U.S. Constitution.
petition identifies no such constitutional claims. Moreover,
Petitioner's ADA claims cannot support a habeas action.
An “ADA claim does not assert the denial of a
constitutional right, ” and cannot lead to habeas