Welcome to Scribd. Sign in or start your free trial to enjoy unlimited e-books, audiobooks & documents.Find out more
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Shaw v. Wong

Shaw v. Wong

Ratings: (0)|Views: 17|Likes:

More info:

Published by: Northern District of California Blog on Sep 22, 2010
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial


Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less





   U  n   i   t  e   d   S   t  a   t  e  s   D   i  s   t  r   i  c   t   C  o  u  r   t
   F  o  r   t   h  e   N  o  r   t   h  e  r  n   D   i  s   t  r   i  c   t  o   f   C  a   l   i   f  o  r  n   i  a
   U  n   i   t  e   d   S   t  a   t  e  s   D   i  s   t  r   i  c   t   C  o  u  r   t
   F  o  r   t   h  e   N  o  r   t   h  e  r  n   D   i  s   t  r   i  c   t  o   f   C  a   l   i   f  o  r  n   i  a
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTFOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIAJOHN SHAW,Plaintiff,v.ROBERT K. WONG, WARDEN,Respondent./No. 09-00077 CWORDER GRANTINGRESPONDENT'SMOTION TO DISMISS(Docket No. 16)On January 8, 2009, Petitioner John Shaw, a California stateprisoner, filed a pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpuspursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. On October 20, 2009, Respondentfiled a motion to dismiss the petition based on failure to exhauststate remedies. Petitioner filed two identical oppositions onDecember 14, 2009 and December 21, 2009. On January 26, 2010,Respondent filed a reply. Having considered all the paperssubmitted by the parties, the Court GRANTS Respondent’s motion todismiss.BACKGROUNDPetitioner John Shaw, also known as John Hsia, was tried by ajury and found guilty of three counts of grand theft, two counts offorgery, three counts of using personal identifying information
Case4:09-cv-00077-CW Document21 Filed09/17/10 Page1 of 6
   U  n   i   t  e   d   S   t  a   t  e  s   D   i  s   t  r   i  c   t   C  o  u  r   t
   F  o  r   t   h  e   N  o  r   t   h  e  r  n   D   i  s   t  r   i  c   t  o   f   C  a   l   i   f  o  r  n   i  a
2without authorization, three counts of recording a falseinstrument, one count of conspiracy, one count of attempting todissuade a witness, and one count of false application for adriver’s license. The jury also found two excessive takingenhancements. The trial court sentenced Petitioner to a term offourteen years and four months.Petitioner filed a timely appeal to the California court ofappeal. On January 14, 2008, the appellate court affirmed thetrial court’s judgment. On February 14, 2008, Petitioner filed apetition for review in the California Supreme Court, asserting twoclaims: (1) insufficient evidence to convict on counts 9 and 10 --conspiracy to dissuade a witness and dissuading a witness -- and(2) failure by the trial court to strike an excessive takingenhancement. The petition was denied on April 9, 2008.On January 8, 2009, Petitioner filed this federal habeaspetition. Petitioner asserts the following: (1) Petitioner wasdenied his “right to confrontation” because the prosecutor failedto provide a copy of the arrest report, failed to question awitness’s inconsistent testimony and did not explain why a witnesshad been placed on the witness list; (2) Petitioner was not readhis Miranda rights at the time of his arrest; (3) Petitioner wasnot told what crimes he was charged with and was detained formonths without being informed of his status; (4) Petitioner’s trialcounsel was ineffective because counsel failed to depose or callwitnesses who were crucial to Petitioner’s defense; (5) theprosecution presented fraudulent evidence; (6) there wasinsufficient evidence to prove the false application for a driver’s
Case4:09-cv-00077-CW Document21 Filed09/17/10 Page2 of 6
   U  n   i   t  e   d   S   t  a   t  e  s   D   i  s   t  r   i  c   t   C  o  u  r   t
   F  o  r   t   h  e   N  o  r   t   h  e  r  n   D   i  s   t  r   i  c   t  o   f   C  a   l   i   f  o  r  n   i  a
3license; (7) Petitioner was “selectively targeted” forprosecution,; (8) the prosecution conspired to defraud Petitionerof his civil rights; (9) the prosecution relied on inconsistenttheories regarding a particular piece of evidence; and(10) Petitioner was denied access to a translator and was unable toassist in his defense due to his limited knowledge of the Englishlanguage. He does not assert the two claims that he raised beforethe California Supreme Court.Respondent moves to dismiss all of Petitioner’s claims basedon failure to exhaust state remedies.LEGAL STANDARDPrisoners in state custody who wish to challenge collaterallyin federal habeas proceedings either the fact or length of theirconfinement are first required to exhaust state judicial remedies,either on direct appeal or through collateral proceedings, bypresenting the highest state court available with a fairopportunity to rule on the merits of each and every claim they seekto raise in federal court. 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (b), (c); Granberry v.Greer, 481 U.S. 129, 133-34 (1987); Rose v. Lundy, 455 U.S. 509,515 (1982).The exhaustion-of-state-remedies doctrine reflects a policy offederal-state comity "to give the state the initial 'opportunity topass upon and correct' alleged violations of its prisoners' federalrights." Picard v. Connor, 404 U.S. 270, 275 (1971). Theexhaustion requirement is satisfied only if the federal claim hasbeen "fairly presented" to the state courts. Id
Peterson v.Lampert, 319 F.3d 1153, 1155 (9th Cir. 2003)(en banc). The
Case4:09-cv-00077-CW Document21 Filed09/17/10 Page3 of 6

You're Reading a Free Preview

/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->