Aaron Reddix v. United States District Court Central District of California

Filing 3

ORDER DISMISSING HABEAS CORPUS PETITION AND DENYING CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY by Judge R. Gary Klausner. (See document for further details.) re Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (2254) 1 . (sbou)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 15 ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 16 Before the Court is a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, in 10 AARON REDDIX, Petitioner, 11 12 13 v. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, 14 Respondent. CASE NO. CV 17-968-RGK (PJW) ORDER DISMISSING HABEAS CORPUS PETITION AND DENYING CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY 17 which Petitioner, who is currently incarcerated in the Los Angeles 18 County Jail, is challenging his January 20, 2017 state conviction. 19 (Petition at 2.) 20 California Proposition 57 and that his conviction was obtained on the 21 strength of a false police report and perjured testimony. 22 at 3.) 23 sought review in the California Supreme Court. 24 the following reasons, the Petition is dismissed without prejudice. 25 He claims that he is entitled to a pardon based on (Petition Petitioner acknowledges that he has not filed an appeal or (Petition at 5.) For The Court has a duty to screen habeas corpus petitions before 26 ordering service on a respondent. See Mayle v. Felix, 545 U.S. 644, 27 656 (2005). 28 petition that a petitioner is not entitled to relief, the Court can In doing so, if it plainly appears from the face of a 1 dismiss the petition at the outset. 2 § 2254 Cases. 3 See Rule 4, Rules Governing As a matter of comity between state and federal courts, a federal 4 court will generally not address the merits of a habeas corpus 5 petition unless a petitioner has first exhausted his state remedies by 6 presenting his claims to the highest court of the state. 7 § 2254(b); Rose v. Lundy, 455 U.S. 509, 522 (1982); see also Cooper v. 8 Neven, 641 F.3d 322, 326 (9th Cir. 2011). 9 presented his claims to the California Supreme Court, the Petition is 28 U.S.C. Because Petitioner has not 10 unexhausted and subject to dismissal. 11 F.3d 1150, 1154 (9th Cir. 2006) (“Once a district court determines 12 that a habeas petition contains only unexhausted claims, it need not 13 inquire further as to the petitioner’s intentions. 14 simply dismiss the habeas petition for failure to exhaust.”). 15 See Rasberry v. Garcia, 448 Instead, it may Accordingly, the Petition is dismissed without prejudice. 16 Further, because Petitioner has not made a substantial showing of the 17 denial of a constitutional right, a certificate of appealability will 18 not issue in this action. 19 22(b); Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336 (2003). See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2); Fed. R. App. P. 20 IT IS SO ORDERED 21 DATED: February 14, 2017 22 R. GARY KLAUSNER UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 23 24 Presented by: 25 26 27 PATRICK J. WALSH UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 28 C:\Users\imartine\AppData\Local\Temp\notesC7A056\ORDER.wpd 2

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?