United States District Court, E.D. Washington
ORDER SUMMARILY DISMISSING HABEAS ACTION
Stanley A. Bastian United States District Judge.
THE COURT is Petitioner's First Amended Petition under 28
U.S.C. § 2254 for Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person in
State Custody. ECF No. 10. Petitioner, a prisoner at the
Coyote Ridge Corrections Center, is proceeding pro
se and in forma pauperis. Respondent has not
initial defect with the amended 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 t he
person having custody of t he 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 inst itution where the petitioner
is incarcerated. See Ortiz-Sandoval v. Gomez, 8 1 F
. 3 d 891 (9th Cir. 1996). Failure to name a proper
respondent deprives federal courts of person al jurisdiction.
See Stanley, 21 F.3d at 360.
challenges his 2018 Grant County guilty pleas to first-degree
rape of a child and first-degree child molestation. He was
sentenced on January 16, 2019, to 120 months'
incarceration. Petitioner provides no information regarding
any direct appeal. ECF No. 10 at 2.
grounds for relief, Petitioner argues that the State of
Washington has no jurisdiction to decide federal
constitutional matters. ECF No. 10 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.
before a federal court may grant habeas relief to a state
prisoner, the prisoner must exhaust the state court remedies
available to him. 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 claims before he 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 the petitioner has a right under state law to raise
the claim by available procedure. See Id.; 28 U.S.C.
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 the
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
365-366; see also Tamalini v. Stewart, 249 F.3d 895,
898 (9th Cir. 2001) (same). Mere similarity between a claim
raised in state court an d a cl a i m in a federal habeas
petition is insufficient. Duncan, 513 U.S. at
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 and the attached documents that
Petitioner has not exhausted his state court remedies as to
each of his grounds for relief.
FOR FEDERAL HABEAS RELIEF
asserts that the Washington state constitution contradicts
the federal constitution regarding the Fifth Amendment right
to “presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury.”
He claims “no bill of indictment” was brought
against him rendering h is arrest, conviction an d
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. His bald assertion that “due process of the law
was ignored” is unsupported by his factual allegations.
U.S. Supreme Court stated long ago, “Prosecution by
information instead of by indictment is provided for by the
laws of Washington. This is not a violation of the Federal
Constitution.” See Gaines v. Washington, 277
U.S. 81, 86 (1928). There is no federal constitutional
violation when a prosecuting attorney's criminal
information is substituted for the grand jury's
indictment. See Hurtado v. California,110 U.S. 516
(1884) (rejecting the claim that an indictment is essential
to due process of law and that a state violates the
Fourteenth Amendment by prosecuting a defendant ...