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.

McFarland v. Eastern Washington Pre-Release

*fn* submitted seattle washington: May 4, 1993.

VANCE ALLEN MCFARLAND, PETITIONER-APPELLANT,
v.
EASTERN WASHINGTON PRE-RELEASE, ET AL., RESPONDENT-APPELLEE.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Washington. D.C. No. CV-91-433-AAM. Alan A. McDonald, District Judge, Presiding

Before: Wright, Alarcon, and Beezer, Circuit Judges.

MEMORANDUM

Vance Allen McFarland appeals the denial of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus. He claims the Washington Department of Corrections miscalculated his good time credits for time served in the Clark County jail. We affirm the denial of the petition.

The district court held McFarland's claim was procedurally defaulted under state law. "An adequate and independent finding of procedural default will bar federal habeas review of the federal claim, unless the habeas petitioner can show 'cause' for the default and 'prejudice attributable thereto,' or demonstrate that failure to consider the federal claim will result in a 'fundamental miscarriage of Justice.'" Harris v. Reed, 489 U.S. 255, 263 (1989) (citations omitted). "The last state court rendering a judgment in the case" must "clearly and expressly state[] that its judgment rests on a state procedural bar." Id. at 263.

The Washington Court of Appeals clearly and expressly held McFarland's claim was procedurally barred under Wash. Rev. Code § 10.73.140 because McFarland had presented it in a previous personal restraint petition. The Washington Supreme Court denied discretionary review. That court, too, clearly and expressly indicated the claim was barred from review under Wash. R. App. P. 16.4(d) and Wash. Rev. Code § 10.73.140.

At no time has McFarland shown cause and prejudice for the default, nor that a "fundamental miscarriage of Justice" would result if the claim was not reviewed by the district court. Harris, 489 U.S. at 263. Neither has McFarland demonstrated that the procedural rules relied upon by the state are not "firmly established and regularly followed." James v. Kentucky, 466 U.S. 341, 348 (1984).

The petition for a writ of habeas corpus is DENIED.

Disposition

The petition for a writ of habeas ...


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.