Saldana v. Grounds
Filing
2
ORDER OF DISMISSAL. Signed by Judge Thelton E. Henderson on 12/10/2012. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service)(tmi, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/11/2012)
1
2
3
4
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
5
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
6
7
CARLOS ARMANDO SALDANA,
No. C-12-6026 TEH (PR)
8
Petitioner,
9
ORDER TO DISMISSAL
v.
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
RANDY GROUNDS, Warden,
11
Respondent.
12
/
13
14
Petitioner, a state prisoner incarcerated at California
15
Training Facility in Soledad, California, has filed a pro se
16
Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
challenging a judgment of conviction from Contra Costa County
Superior Court.
Doc. #1.
He has paid the $5.00 filing fee.
I
In 2009, Petitioner was convicted by jury in Contra Costa
County Superior Court of forcible rape and other sexual crimes.
In
2010, the California Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment and the
California Supreme Court denied review.
The instant federal
petition for a writ of habeas corpus followed.
Doc. #1.
II
This Court may entertain a petition for a writ of habeas
corpus “in behalf of a person in custody pursuant to the judgment of
1
a State court only on the ground that he is in custody in violation
2
of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.”
3
U.S.C. § 2254(a).
4
directing the respondent to show cause why the writ should not be
5
granted, unless it appears from the application that the applicant
6
or person detained is not entitled thereto.”
7
28
It shall “award the writ or issue an order
Id. § 2243.
Petitioner seeks federal habeas corpus relief on two
8
claims: (1) ineffective assistance of appellate counsel and
9
(2) ineffective assistance of trial counsel.
Doc. #1 at 6.
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
However, Petitioner indicates that his state habeas petition for a
11
writ of habeas corpus, in which he first asserts his claim of
12
ineffective assistance of appellate counsel, is still pending in the
13
Contra Costa Superior Court.
Doc. #1 at 3, 4.
14
Prisoners in state custody who wish to challenge
15
collaterally in federal habeas proceedings either the fact or length
16
of their confinement are first required to exhaust state judicial
17
remedies, either on direct appeal or through collateral proceedings,
18
by presenting the highest state court available with a fair
19
opportunity to rule on the merits of each and every claim they seek
20
to raise in federal court.
21
Lundy, 455 U.S. 509, 515-16 (1982); Duckworth v. Serrano, 454 U.S.
22
1, 3 (1981).
23
exhausted his state remedies is when the federal habeas petition is
24
filed.
25
See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b), (c); Rose v.
The appropriate time to assess whether a prisoner has
Brown v. Maass, 11 F3d 914, 915 (9th Cir. 1993).
The exhaustion requirement is not satisfied if there is a
26
pending post-conviction proceeding in state court, even if the issue
27
the petitioner seeks to raise in federal court has been finally
28
2
1
determined by the highest available state court in another context.
2
Sherwood v. Tomkins, 716 F.2d 632, 634 (9th Cir. 1983).
3
because the pending state action might result in reversal of the
4
conviction on some other ground mooting the federal case.
5
also Schnepp v. State of Oregon, 333 F.2d 288, 288 (9th Cir. 1964)
6
(affirming dismissal of petition because there were post-conviction
7
proceedings pending in state court); Alls v. Curry, 2008 WL 4183430,
8
*1-2 (N.D. Cal.) (dismissing petition without prejudice due to
9
pending state habeas petition).
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
This is
Id.; see
Therefore, this petition must be dismissed without
11
prejudice to refiling when no further proceedings are pending in the
12
California state courts.
13
14
IT IS SO ORDERED.
15
16
DATED
12/10/2012
THELTON E. HENDERSON
United States District Judge
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
G:\PRO-SE\TEH\HC.12\Saldana 12-6026 HC-Dis.wpd
3
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?