Alvarado v. Tilton
Filing
2
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE Show Cause Response due by 4/5/2006.. Signed by Judge Alsup on 3/29/06. (whalc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/29/2006)
<![CDATA[
Alvarado v. Tilton
Doc. 2
Case 3:06-cv-02190-WHA
Document 2
Filed 03/29/2006
Page 1 of 2
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ERIC ALVARADO, Petitioner, v. JEANNE WOODFORD, Acting Secretary, California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, Respondent. / ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE No. C 06-02190 WHA IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
United States District Court
11
For the Northern District of California
12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
State prisoner Eric Alvarado, through counsel, filed petition for a writ of habeas corpus on March 27, 2006. The petition stated that he had a pending habeas petition before the state Superior Court. That state petition concerned the same four issues on which he seeks relief from this Court. Those claims apparently have not been otherwise presented to a state court. Petitioner therefore appears not to have exhausted his state-court remedies. The petition includes the notation that "[t]his petition is filed pursuant to Pace v. DiGuglielmo (2005) 544 U.S. ____." Pace held that the one-year deadline for filing federal habeas petitions is not tolled by pending state habeas proceedings if that state postconviction petition ultimately is rejected as untimely. If a state petitioner fears such an outcome, he may file a "`protective' petition in federal court and ask[] the federal court to stay and abey the federal habeas proceedings until state remedies are exhausted." In certain cases, such a request to stay a petition with unexhausted claims should be granted. 544 U.S. 408, 125 S.Ct. 1807,
Dockets.Justia.com
Case 3:06-cv-02190-WHA
Document 2
Filed 03/29/2006
Page 2 of 2
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
1810, 181314 (2005) (no U.S. Reports pincites). Perhaps petitioner seeks to follow this procedure. He has not done so, however, because there is no request for stay or abeyance. Petitioner is ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THIS CASE SHOULD NOT BE SUMMARILY DISMISSED because he did not exhaust his state remedies.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: March 29, 2006
WILLIAM ALSUP UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
United States District Court
11
For the Northern District of California
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?
