Aguilar v. California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation

Background

Hector M. Aguilar, a state prisoner, filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, the federal statute allowing a state prisoner to challenge custody through a petition for habeas corpus. Aguilar alleged that certain California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation policies concerning inmate housing were unauthorized “underground regulations.” He also sought to invalidate disciplinary violations brought under those policies.

Aguilar had received a 2019 prison disciplinary violation for refusing to accept a housing assignment or delaying a peace officer. He challenged the finding through the prison’s internal appeal process, which denied his appeal at the final level. He then filed a state habeas petition in Del Norte County Superior Court. That court interpreted his petition as challenging the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the rule violation and denied it. The record did not show that Aguilar filed a habeas petition in either the California Court of Appeal or the California Supreme Court.

Motion to dismiss

James Robertson, identified as the current warden of the prison where Aguilar was incarcerated, moved to dismiss instead of filing an answer. Robertson argued that the petition should be dismissed because it challenged only state law, because success would not necessarily result in Aguilar’s earlier release, and because Aguilar had not exhausted his state remedies. Aguilar did not file an opposition to the motion.

Court’s analysis

The court explained that a state prisoner generally must fairly present the substance and federal constitutional basis of each claim to the state courts before seeking federal habeas relief. The state’s highest court must have an opportunity to review the claims, even when that court’s review is discretionary. The court also noted that it may deny an unexhausted petition on the merits, but is not required to do so.

The court found that Aguilar had not fairly presented his claims to the California Supreme Court. Because the claims were unexhausted, the court did not address Robertson’s other arguments.

Disposition

The court granted Robertson’s motion to dismiss for failure to exhaust state remedies. It dismissed Aguilar’s habeas petition without prejudice and directed the Clerk to close the file. The court explained that a dismissal based solely on failure to exhaust does not bar a later return to federal court after available state remedies have been exhausted.