Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Smith v. Patton State Hospital

United States District Court, C.D. California

March 20, 2017

Jack Robert Smith
v.
Patton State Hospital

          Present: The Honorable KENLY KIYA KATO, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

          CIVIL MINUTES-GENERAL

         Proceedings: (In Chambers) Order to Show Cause Why Petition Should Not Be Dismissed Due to Failure to Exhaust

         I. INTRODUCTION

         On March 1, 2017, petitioner Jack Robert Smith (“Petitioner”) constructively filed1 a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (the “Petition”). Petitioner challenges his civil commitment at Patton State Hospital after he was found not guilty by reason of insanity in San Bernardino Superior Court. This Court, having reviewed the Petition, finds the Petition is subject to dismissal because Petitioner has not exhausted his state remedies. The Court will not make a final determination regarding whether the Petition should be dismissed, however, without giving Petitioner an opportunity to address these issues.

         1 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) (citation omitted).

         II.

         THE PETITION IS A WHOLLY UNEXHAUSTED PETITION SUBJECT TO DISMISSAL

         A person seeking habeas relief must exhaust his state court remedies before a federal court may consider granting relief. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(1)(A); O'Sullivan v. Boerckel, 526 U.S. 838, 842, 119 S.Ct. 1728, 144 L.Ed.2d 1 (1999). To satisfy the exhaustion requirement, a habeas petitioner must fairly present his federal claims in the state courts in order to give the State the opportunity to pass upon and correct alleged violations of the prisoner's federal rights. Duncan v. Henry, 513 U.S. 364, 365, 115 S.Ct. 887, 130 L.Ed.2d 865 (1995) (per curiam). A habeas 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 in order to properly exhaust a claim. O'Sullivan, 526 U.S. at 845.

         For a petitioner in California state custody, this generally means that the petitioner must have fairly presented his claims in a petition to the California Supreme Court. See Id. (interpreting 28 U.S.C. § 2254(c)); Gatlin v. Madding, 189 F.3d 882, 888 (9th Cir. 1999) (applying O'Sullivan to California). 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, 189 F.3d at 888.

         In this case, based on the attachments to the Petition, Petitioner appears to raise five grounds for relief. ECF Docket No. (“Dkt.”) 1. However, it does not appear Petitioner has presented any of these grounds to the California Supreme Court, nor has the court ruled on any of these claims. In addition, Petitioner concedes he has a state habeas petition pending in the California Supreme Court. Id. at 3, 8, 10.

         Further, it is unclear from the Petition whether Petitioner has, in fact, filed a petition for release under Section 1026.2 of the California Penal Code. A petitioner “committed to a state mental hospital will not be released from confinement, parole or outpatient status until the expiration of the maximum term of the commitment or when the committing court determines that the person's sanity has been restored.” Grondorf v. Graziani, No. C02-5958 SRI (PR), 2003 WL 21838186, at *1 (N.D. Cal. July 31, 2003); Cal. Penal Code §§ 1026.1, 1026.2. Because Section 1026.2 provides Petitioner with an available statutory remedy, he will need to exhaust this option in state court prior to seeking habeas relief.

         Hence, as none of the grounds in the instant Petition have been ruled on by the California Supreme Court, the Petition is both wholly unexhausted and premature.

         III.

...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.