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)

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