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