Searching over 5,500,000 cases.

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.

Hughes v. State

United States District Court, E.D. Washington

July 22, 2019

WILLIAM E. HUGHES, Petitioner,



         Petitioner William E. Hughes, a prisoner at the Coyote Ridge Corrections Center, brings this pro se Petition Under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 for Writ of Habeas Corpus By a Person in State Custody, ECF No. 1. The $5.00 filing fee has been paid.


         An initial defect with the petition is that it fails to name a proper party as a respondent. The proper respondent in a federal petition seeking habeas corpus relief is the person having custody of the petitioner. Rumsfeld v. Padilla, 542 U.S. 426 (2004); Stanley v. Cal. Supreme Court, 21 F.3d 359, 360 (9th Cir. 1994). If the petitioner is incarcerated, the proper respondent is generally the warden of the institution where the petitioner is incarcerated. See Ortiz-Sandoval v. Gomez, 81 F.3d 891 (9th Cir. 1996). Failure to name a proper respondent deprives federal courts of personal jurisdiction. See Stanley, 21 F.3d at 360.

         Petitioner acknowledges his error and submitted a Motion to Substitute Respondent, ECF No. 5. Based on the disposition of this action, however, the motion will be denied as moot.


         Petitioner challenges a Lincoln County guilty plea to unspecified charges. He received a sentence of twenty-seven plus three months' confinement. Petitioner indicates that he did not appeal from the judgment of conviction. ECF No. 1 at 2.

         In his grounds for relief, Petitioner argues that the State of Washington has no jurisdiction to decide federal constitutional matters. Id. at 5-12. It has long been settled that state courts are competent to decide questions arising under the U.S. Constitution. See Baker v. Grice, 169 U.S. 284, 291 (1898) (“It is the duty of the state court, as much as it is that of the federal courts, when the question of the validity of a state statute is necessarily involved, as being in alleged violation of any provision of the federal constitution, to decide that question, and to hold the law void if it violate that instrument.”); see also Worldwide Church of God v. McNair, 805 F.2d 888, 891 (9th Cir. 1986) (holding that state courts are as competent as federal courts to decide federal constitutional matters). Therefore, Petitioner's arguments to the contrary lack merit.

         Additionally, before a federal court may grant habeas corpus relief to a state prisoner, the prisoner must exhaust the state court remedies available to him or her. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b); Baldwin v. Reese, 541 U.S. 27 (2004). Exhaustion generally requires that a prisoner give the state courts an opportunity to act on his or her claims before he or she presents those claims to a federal court. O'Sullivan v. Boerckel, 526 U.S. 838 (1999). A petitioner has not exhausted a claim for relief so long as he or she has a right under state law to raise the claim by an available procedure. See id.; 28 U.S.C. § 2254(c).

         To meet the exhaustion requirement, the petitioner must have “fairly present[ed] his claim in each appropriate state court (including a state supreme court with powers of discretionary review), thereby alerting that court to the federal nature of the claim.” Baldwin, 541 U.S. at 29; see also Duncan v. Henry, 513 U.S. 364, 365-66 (1995). A petitioner fairly presents a claim to a state court by describing the factual or legal bases for that claim and by alerting the state court “to the fact that the . . . [petitioner is] asserting claims under the United States Constitution.” Duncan, 513 U.S. at 365-66; see also Tamalini v. Stewart, 249 F.3d 895, 898 (9th Cir. 2001) (same). Mere similarity between a claim raised in a state court and a claim in a federal habeas corpus petition is insufficient. Duncan, 513 U.S. at 365-66.

         Furthermore, to fairly present a claim, the petitioner “must give the state courts one full opportunity to resolve any constitutional issues by invoking one complete round of the State's established appellate review process.” O'Sullivan, 526 U.S. at 845. Once a federal claim has been fairly presented to the state courts, the exhaustion requirement is satisfied. See Picard v. Connor, 404 U.S. 270, 275 (1971). It appears from the face of the petition, the attached documents, and the supplement received on June 18, 2019, ECF No. 4, that Petitioner has not exhausted his state court remedies as to each of his grounds for relief. Indeed, Petitioner affirmatively represents that he did not exhaust his state court remedies.


         Petitioner asserts that the Washington State Constitution contradicts the U.S. Constitution regarding the Fifth Amendment right to “presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury.” ECF No. 1. He claims “no bill of indictment” was brought against him, rendering his arrest, conviction, and imprisonment illegal. Id.

         Petitioner seems to argue that because the state courts have defied “federally established procedures and processes for the adjudication of crimes, ” only “a court of federal jurisdiction” has jurisdictional authority over his claims. Id. His bald assertion that “due ...

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.