United States District Court, W.D. Washington, Tacoma
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
W. CHRISTEL UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
District Court has referred this action to United States
Magistrate Judge David W. Christel. Petitioner Micah A. Nye
filed his federal habeas Petition (“Petition”),
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, seeking relief from his
state court convictions and sentence. See Dkt. 6.
The Court concludes Petitioner failed to properly exhaust his
state court remedies as to all grounds raised in the
Petition. Because Petitioner's time for pursuing state
remedies has expired, Petitioner has procedurally defaulted
on all his claims. Therefore, the Court recommends the
Petition be dismissed with prejudice.
is in custody under a state court judgment and sentence
imposed for his conviction by guilty plea for two counts of
first-degree rape of a child. Dkt. 11, Exhibit 2. Petitioner
was sentenced to an indeterminate life sentence with
concurrent 160-month minimum terms. Dkt. 11, Exhibit 2,
Exhibit 3. Petitioner did not file a direct appeal.
November 21, 2018, Petitioner filed a pro se motion
for relief from judgment with the Clark County Superior
Court. Dkt. 11, Exhibit 4. Petitioner alleged three grounds
for relief: (1) the trial court violated his Sixth Amendment
right to retained counsel of his choice; (2) the Department
of Corrections (“DOC”) violated his right to due
process to deliver the transcripts of the proceedings; and
(3) the prosecutor used fraudulent and unreliable evidence to
establish probable cause. Dkt. 11, Exhibit 4. Several weeks
later, Petitioner filed a second motion for relief from
judgment raising four additional grounds for relief: (1) his
speedy trial rights were violated; (2) the arresting officers
violated Petitioner's Miranda rights, Fifth
Amendment right against self-incrimination, and Fourteenth
Amendment right to due process; (3) his offender score was
calculated incorrectly; and (4) the evidence supporting the
charges was insufficient. Dkt. 11, Exhibit 5.
separate orders dated May 9 and 10, 2019, the superior court
transferred Petitioner's motions for relief from judgment
to the Washington Court of Appeals to be considered as a
personal restraint petition (“PRP”). Dkt. 11,
Exhibits 6 and 7. As of the date Respondent filed his Answer,
Petitioner's PRP is pending in the Washington Court of
Appeals under cause number 53550-5-II. Dkt. 11, Exhibit 8.
6, 2019, Petitioner filed this Petition pursuant to §
2254. Dkt. 6. Petitioner raises four grounds for relief all
based on his claim he is unlawfully detained, and the State
of Washington does not have jurisdictional authority to
decide federal matters. Dkt. 6. On June 18, 2019, Respondent
filed an Answer, wherein he asserts Petitioner has not
properly exhausted his available state court remedies. Dkt.
10. Respondent maintains the Petition should be dismissed
with prejudice as unexhausted and procedurally
barred. Dkt. 10. Petitioner filed a Traverse. Dkt.
maintains Petitioner failed to exhaust the grounds raised in
the Petition and is procedurally barred from federal review.
Exhaustion of State Remedies
state prisoner must normally exhaust available state judicial
remedies before a federal court will entertain his petition
for habeas corpus.” Picard v. Connor, 404 U.S.
270, 275 (1971). Petitioner's claims will be considered
exhausted only after “the state courts [have been
afforded] a meaningful opportunity to consider allegations of
legal error without interference from the federal
judiciary.” Vasquez v. Hillery, 474 U.S. 254,
257 (1986). “[S]tate prisoners 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.” O'Sullivan v.
Boerckel, 526 U.S. 838, 845 (1999).
federal habeas petitioner must provide the state courts with
a fair opportunity to correct alleged violations of federal
rights. Duncan v. Henry, 513 U.S. 364, 365 (1995);
Middleton v. Cupp, 768 F.2d 1083, 1086 (9th Cir.
1985) (petitioner “fairly presented” the claim to
the state supreme court even though the state court did not
reach the argument on the merits). It is not enough if all
the facts necessary to support the federal claim were before
the state courts or if a somewhat similar state law claim was
made. Duncan, 513 U.S. at 365-66 (citing
Picard, 404 U.S. at 275; Anderson v.
Harless, 459 U.S. 4 (1982)). Petitioner must include
reference to a specific federal constitutional guarantee, as
well as a statement of the facts entitling Petitioner to
relief. Gray v. Netherland, 518 U.S. 152, 162-163
(1996); Insyxiengmay v. Morgan, 403 F.3d 657, 668
(9th Cir. 2005). Petitioner bears the burden of proving he
has exhausted available state remedies and retains the burden
to prove all facts relevant to the exhaustion requirement.
See Rose v. Lundy, 455 U.S. 509, 520 (1982); 28
U.S.C. § 2254(b)(1)(A).
Petition, Petitioner raises four grounds for relief asserting
he is unlawfully detained, and the State of Washington does
not have jurisdictional authority to decide federal matters.
Dkt. 6. In Grounds One and Four, Petitioner alleges a
violation of the Fifth Amendment based on a lack of a grand
jury indictment. Dkt. 6 at 5, 10. In Ground Two, Petitioner
contends his rights under Article IV and VI of the
Constitution have been violated, and his arrest, conviction,
and imprisonment are illegal. Dkt. 6 at 7. In Ground Three,
Petitioner contends he has not been convicted of his crimes
and as a result, he has been “enslaved” and
placed into involuntary servitude in violation of the
Thirteenth Amendment. Dkt. 6 at 8. In Ground Four, in
addition to his Fifth Amendment claim, Petitioner also
alleges violations of the Fourteenth Amendment, and he has
been deprived of life, liberty, and property. Dkt. 6 at 10.
did not raise any of same grounds in the Petition as he
raised in his PRP. Dkt. 11, Exhibits 4, 5, 6, and 7. Rather,
in his PRP, Petitioner raised seven other grounds for relief
challenging: (1) his Sixth Amendment right to counsel; (2)
the DOC violated his due process rights by refusing to
deliver transcripts of the proceedings; (3) the prosecutor
used fraudulent and unreliable evidence; (4) his speedy trial
rights were violated; (5) the arresting officers violated his
Miranda rights, Fifth Amendment right against
self-incrimination, and Fourteenth Amendment right to due
process; (6) ...