Dynes v. CDCR

Filing 6

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE, Motion to Proceed in Forma Pauperis Granted. Motions terminated: 5 MOTION for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis filed by John Ray Dynes, 2 MOTION for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis filed by John Ray Dynes. Signed by Judge Nandor J. Vadas on 5/19/2017. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service)(njvlc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/19/2017)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 EUREKA DIVISON 7 8 JOHN RAY DYNES, Case No. 17-cv-1706-NJV (PR) Petitioner, 9 ORDER FOR PETITIONER TO SHOW CAUSE v. 10 11 Docket Nos. 2, 5 CDCR, United States District Court Northern District of California Respondent. 12 13 14 Petitioner, a California prisoner filed a pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant 15 to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Petitioner challenges a 1994 conviction in Alameda County, so venue is 16 proper here. See 28 U.S.C. § 2241(d). Petitioner has submitted an application to proceed in forma 17 pauperis and has consented to the jurisdiction of a Magistrate Judge. 18 Petitioner seeks to be resentenced pursuant to Proposition 57. Petitioner states he filed a 19 habeas petition in the Alameda County Superior Court; however, it does not appear that his claim 20 was presented to the California Supreme Court. Prisoners in state custody who wish to challenge 21 collaterally in federal habeas proceedings either the fact or length of their confinement are first 22 required to exhaust state judicial remedies, either on direct appeal or through collateral 23 proceedings, by presenting the highest state court available with a fair opportunity to rule on the 24 merits of each and every claim they seek to raise in federal court. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b), (c); 25 Rose v. Lundy, 455 U.S. 509, 515-16 (1982). 26 CONCLUSION 27 1. Petitioner’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis (Docket Nos. 2, 5) is GRANTED. 28 2. Petitioner must show cause within twenty-one (21) days, why this case should not be 1 dismissed as unexhausted. Failure to file a response will result in this case being dismissed. 2 3. Petitioner must keep the court informed of any change of address and must comply with 3 the court's orders in a timely fashion. Failure to do so may result in the dismissal of this action for 4 failure to prosecute pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). See Martinez v. Johnson, 5 104 F.3d 769, 772 (5th Cir. 1997) (Rule 41(b) applicable in habeas cases). 6 7 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: May 19, 2017 ________________________ NANDOR J. VADAS United States Magistrate Judge 8 9 10 United States District Court Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 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?