Randal Ruiz v. Jeffery Beard

Filing 5

MINUTE ORDER (In Chambers) by Magistrate Judge Carla Woehrle. On or before December 19, 2014, Petitioner shall file a response and show cause why the Petition should not be dismissed, without prejudice, for failure to exhaust state court remedies. 1 (gr)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Case No.

CV 14-8693-PA (CW)

Title

Randal Ruiz v. Jeffrey Beard

Present: The
Honorable

Date

November 17, 2014

Carla Woehrle, United States Magistrate Judge
Gay Roberson

n/a

Deputy Clerk

Court Reporter / Recorder

Attorneys Present for Plaintiffs:

Attorneys Present for Defendants:

n/a

n/a

Proceedings:

(In Chambers)

On November 10, 2014, Petitioner filed a Petition for Writ of
Habeas Corpus by a Person in State Custody, in which he appears to
allege five claims (although Grounds One and Three appear to pertain
to procedural, rather substantive, claims). [Docket no. 1.] It
further appears from the Petition that all of the claims alleged
therein are currently pending before the California Supreme Court, and
thus that the Petition accordingly is wholly unexhausted. [Petition
at 7-8.]1
On or before December 19, 2014, Petitioner shall file a response
and show cause why the Petition should not be dismissed, without
prejudice, for failure to exhaust state court remedies. See
Coleman v. Thompson, 501 U.S. 722, 731, 111 S. Ct. 2546 (1991)("This
Court has long held that a state prisoner's federal habeas petition
should be dismissed if the prisoner has not exhausted state remedies
as to any of his federal claims."); see also Raspberry v. Garcia, 448
F.3d 1150, 1154 (9th Cir. 2006)("Once a district court determines that
a habeas petition contains only unexhausted claims, it need not

1

“Before a federal court may grant habeas relief to a state
prisoner, the prisoner must exhaust his remedies in state court.”
O’Sullivan v. Boerckel, 526 U.S. 838, 842, 119 S. Ct. 1728 (1999); see
also 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)-(c); King v. Ryan, 564 F.3d 1133, 1138 (9th
Cir. 2009). For a petitioner in California custody, this generally
means that he or she must have fairly presented each claim – described
both the factual and federal legal basis – in a petition to the
California Supreme Court. See O’Sullivan, 526 U.S. at 845
(interpreting 28 U.S.C. § 2254(c)); Gatlin v. Madding, 189 F.3d 882,
888 (9th Cir. 1999)(applying O’Sullivan to California); see also Gray
v. Netherland, 518 U.S. 152, 162-63, 116 S. Ct. 2074 (1996).
CV-90 (10/08)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Page 1 of 2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Case No.

CV 14-8693-PA (CW)

Date

Title

November 17, 2014

Randal Ruiz v. Jeffrey Beard

inquire further . . . [and] may simply dismiss the habeas petition for
failure to exhaust."). The court will thereafter issue further orders
as appropriate.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
cc:

Randal Ruiz
AL6986
Pleasant Valley State Prison
P O Box 8500
Coalinga, CA 93210

CV-90 (10/08)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Page 2 of 2