United States District Court, D. Nevada
GLORIA M. NAVARRO, Chief District Judge.
This habeas matter under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 comes before the Court on petitioner's application (#1) to proceed in forma pauperis, his motion (#2) for leave to file excess pages, and for initial review under Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. The Court will grant the pauper application and motion subject to the remaining provisions herein.
On initial review, it appears that the petition is subject to dismissal without prejudice because none of the claims therein have been fairly presented in the state courts through to the Supreme Court of Nevada and exhausted. Petitioner therefore will be directed to show cause why the petition should not be dismissed without prejudice for lack of exhaustion.
The papers presented together with the online docket records of the state courts reflect the following procedural history.
Petitioner George Vontress challenges his Nevada state conviction, pursuant to a jury verdict, of robbery with a deadly weapon, burglary while in possession of a firearm, battery with the intent to commit a crime (robbery), and battery with the use of a deadly weapon. Vontress represented himself at trial.
The judgment of conviction was filed on June 15, 2012, and the time for filing a direct appeal expired on July 16, 2012. Petitioner filed, inter alia, an appeal on November 1, 2012. The state supreme court ultimately held, following appointment of counsel, that the appeal was untimely and dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. The court dismissed the appeal in a March 13, 2014, order in No. 62057 in that court, and the remittitur issued on May 19, 2014.
Meanwhile, petitioner filed a motion to vacate judgment in the state district court on February 1, 2013. It does not appear that the motion has been adjudicated by the state district court as yet, with the court previously having taken all pending matters off calendar during the pendency of the untimely appeal.
Petitioner also filed a state post-conviction petition on March 27, 2013. The state district court denied the petition. The state court clerk gave notice of entry of the court's findings of fact, conclusions of law, and order on August 4, 2014.
The state district court online docket does not reflect that, at the time that this order was prepared, petitioner had appealed the denial of his state petition. Petitioner confirms in his responses to the exhaustion inquiries in the federal petition that he has not. He states that he has not appealed the dismissal because "[t]he Nevada Supreme Court is part of the conspiracy and in collusion with state officials."
The only other proceeding that petitioner has pursued through to the Supreme Court of Nevada regarding the current criminal case is in No. 60674. In that proceeding, Vontress filed an original petition for extraordinary relief on April 17, 2012 - prior to his conviction - seeking an order staying the state district court proceedings pending the state supreme court's disposition of a then yet-to-be-filed petition. The state supreme court declined to exercise original jurisdiction in the matter expressly "without deciding upon the merits of any claims raised therein."
The Court may raise issues of exhaustion sua sponte. See, e.g., Aiken v. Spalding, 841 F.2d 881, 883 (9th Cir. 1988). Under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(1)(A), a habeas petitioner first must exhaust his state court remedies on a claim before presenting that claim to the federal courts. To satisfy this exhaustion requirement, the claim must have been fairly presented to the state courts completely through to the highest court available, in this case the Supreme Court of Nevada. E.g., Peterson v. Lampert, 319 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 2003)( en banc ); Vang v. Nevada, 329 F.3d 1069, 1075 (9th Cir. 2003). In the state courts, the petitioner must refer to the specific federal constitutional guarantee and must also state the facts that entitle the petitioner to relief on the federal constitutional claim. E.g., Shumway v. Payne, 223 F.3d 983, 987 (9th Cir. 2000). That is, fair presentation requires that the petitioner present the state courts with both the operative facts and the federal legal theory upon which his claim is based. E.g., Castillo v. McFadden, 399 F.3d 993, 999 (9th Cir. 2005). The exhaustion requirement insures that the state courts, as a matter of federal-state comity, will have the first opportunity to pass upon and correct alleged violations of federal constitutional guarantees. See, e.g., Coleman v. Thompson, 501 U.S. 722, 731(1991).
A petition that is completely unexhausted is subject to immediate dismissal. See, e.g., Rasberry v. Garcia, 448 F.3d 1150, 1154 (9th Cir. 2006); Jiminez ...