Brandon Brown v. Superior Court of Los Angeles for the State of California et al

Filing 20

ORDER SUMMARILY DISMISSING CASE WITHOUT PREJUDICE by Judge Gary A. Feess. Case Terminated. Made JS-6. (ib)

O

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

BRANDON BROWN,
Petitioner,

12
13

vs.

14

MARTIN D. BITER, Warden,

15

Respondent.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CASE NO. CV 12-7826 GAF (RZ)
ORDER SUMMARILY DISMISSING
ACTION WITHOUT PREJUDICE

16
17

The Court will dismiss the action summarily because Petitioner expressly

18

indicates that none of his claims has been exhausted in the state courts, as is required for

19

habeas relief. See generally 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b).

20

Generally, Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United

21

States District Courts provides that “[i]f it plainly appears from the face of the petition and

22

any exhibits annexed to it that the petitioner is not entitled to relief in the district court, the

23

judge shall make an order for its summary dismissal and cause the petitioner to be

24

notified.” More specifically, the Ninth Circuit indicates that a district court presented with

25

an entirely unexhausted petition may, or even must, dismiss the action. Raspberry v.

26

Garcia, 448 F.3d 1150, 1154 (9th Cir. 2006) (“Once a district court determines that a

27

habeas petition contains only unexhausted claims, it need not inquire further as to the

28

petitioner’s intentions. Instead, it may simply dismiss the habeas petition for failure to

1

exhaust.”), citing Jimenez v. Rice, 276 F.3d 478, 481 (9th Cir. 2001) (district court is

2

“obliged to dismiss [an entirely unexhausted petition] immediately” once respondent

3

moves for such dismissal).

4

Here, Petitioner asserts five claims. He admits that he has submitted none of

5

them to the California Supreme Court. Pet. ¶¶ 7(a)(3)-(4), (b)(3)-(4), (c)(3)-(4), (d)(3)-(4),

6

(e)(3)-(4), 8 (“None of the grounds were raised in the state court.”). A Raspberry dismissal

7

is in order.

8

Accordingly, the Petition is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

9
10

DATED: January 21, 2013

11
12
13

GARY A. FEESS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-2-