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 Adam Vincent
Mlday 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 of one count of
second-degree burglary-domestic violence. Dkt. 12, Exhibit 4.
Petitioner was sentenced to 43-month term. Dkt. 11, Exhibit
4. Petitioner did not file a direct appeal.
11, 2019, Petitioner filed this Petition pursuant to §
2254. Dkts. 1, 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 July 26, 2019, Respondent
filed the Answer, wherein he argued a state remedy remained
available and the Petition should be dismissed without
prejudice because Petitioner is not presently time-barred
from seeking collateral review in the state courts. Dkt. 11.
September 18, 2019, after a review of the Petition, Answer,
and state court record, the Court concluded Petitioner's
time to file a petition or motion for post-conviction relief
had passed since the filing of the Answer and expired on
September 6, 2019. Dkt. 13 at 1 (citing RCW § 10.73.090
(no petition or motion for collateral attack may be filed
more than one year after the judgment becomes final)). The
Court ordered Respondent to supplement his Answer and provide
additional information whether a state remedy remained
available to Petitioner. Dkt. 13.
September 23, 2019, Respondent filed his Supplemental Answer
and argues Petitioner did not seek post-conviction collateral
relief with the state court. Dkt. 14 at 1-2. Respondent
argues Petitioner's claims are now procedurally barred
and the Court should dismiss the Petition with prejudice.
Dkt. 14 at 2-4. Petitioner did not file a Traverse or a
response to the Supplemental Answer. See Dkt.
maintains Petitioner failed to exhaust the grounds raised in
the Petition and is procedurally barred from federal review.
Dkts. 11, 14.
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.
did not raise any of the four grounds in the instant Petition
on direct appeal or collateral review. See Dkt. 12.
Therefore, Petitioner did not give the state court a full and
fair opportunity to determine if a federal constitutional
violation occurred when he was convicted of rape. See
Baldwin v. Reese, 541 U.S. 27, 29 (2004) (“To
provide the State with the necessary ‘opportunity,'
the prisoner must ‘fairly present' 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 ...