Brubaker v. State of Washington

THE HONORABLE JOHN C. COUGHENOUR UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 8 AT SEATTLE JUSTIN L. BRUBAKER, CASE NO. C20-0024-JCC Petitioner, ORDER 11 v. STATE OF WASHINGTON, 13 Respondent.

15 This matter comes before the Court on the report and recommendation of the Honorable Michelle L. Peterson, United States Magistrate Judge (Dkt. No. 4). Petitioner seeks relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 from a 2017 judgment of the Whatcom County Superior Court. (Dkt. No. 3 at 1.) Judge Peterson recommends that the Court dismiss Petitioner’s habeas petition because he has not exhausted the remedies available to him in state court. (Dkt. No. 4 at 2.) Petitioner appears to have filed objections in the form of a motion to show cause. (See Dkt. No. 5.) In his motion, Petitioner argues that he does have to exhaust his federal constitutional claims in state court because state courts lack subject matter jurisdiction to hear such claims. (See id. at 2–3.)

23 Petitioner is mistaken. “Federal law is enforceable in state courts . . . because the Constitution and laws passed pursuant to it are as much laws in the States as laws passed by the state legislature.” Howlett v. Rose, 496 U.S. 356, 367 (1990). Consequently, state courts have the power to hear federal constitutional claims. Id. Congress was well aware of this power when it enacted the federal habeas statute. And it required, as a matter of federal-state comity, that inmates give state courts ““an ‘initial opportunity to pass upon and correct’ alleged violations of . . . prisoners’ federal rights.” Picard v. Connor, 404 U.S. 270, 275 (1971) (quoting Wilwording v. Swenson, 404 U.S. 249, 250 (1971)). Petitioner did not comply with this requirement because he never presented any of his federal habeas claims to Washington’s courts for review. (See Dkt. No. 3 at 5–12.) Accordingly, the Court OVERRULES Petitioner’s objections, DISMISSES Petitioner’s motion to show cause (Dkt. No. 5), ADOPTS Judge Peterson’s report and recommendation (Dkt. No. 4), DISMISSES Petitioner’s habeas petition (Dkt. No. 3) without prejudice, and DENIES Petitioner a certificate of appealability.

10 DATED this 2nd day of March 2020.

A John C. Coughenour 14 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE