Derrick Lamar Hairston v. Warden

Summary

The United States District Court for the Central District of California ordered Derrick Lamar Hairston to show cause why his § 2254 habeas petition should not be dismissed. The court identified apparent failures to exhaust state remedies, lack of cognizable federal claims, and untimeliness. The order permitted voluntary dismissal or a timely response by April 13, 2023.

Holdings

1. A state prisoner generally must exhaust federal habeas claims by presenting them to the state courts through a complete round of direct review or state habeas proceedings, and federal habeas relief is unavailable for unexhausted claims.
2. Alleged violations of state law, including claims concerning Proposition 47 sentence enhancements and presentence custody credits, are not cognizable on federal habeas review absent a violation of federal law.
3. A § 2254 petition must allege a violation of the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States; an allegation that publicity pressured a guilty plea, without identifying a federal violation, is not cognizable.
4. A state prisoner generally has one year from the date the conviction becomes final to file a federal habeas petition, subject to statutory or equitable tolling and other valid bases for avoiding the limitation bar.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the petition should be dismissed or subjected to an order to show cause because Hairston failed to exhaust available state-court remedies.
2. Whether the Proposition 47 and presentence-custody-credit claims were cognizable under federal habeas law.
3. Whether the claim that publicity pressured Hairston to plead guilty alleged a violation of the Constitution or federal law cognizable under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a).
4. Whether the petition was untimely under the one-year limitation period in 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1).

Disposition

other