Williams v. Peery

Filing 13

ORDER OF DISMISSAL. Signed by Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. on 9/22/2016. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service)(ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/22/2016)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 CARL AROLDO WILLIAMS, Petitioner, 8 S. PEERY, Warden, Respondent. 11 United States District Court Northern District of California ORDER OF DISMISSAL v. 9 10 Case No. 16-cv-02297-HSG (PR) 12 Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus 13 14 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, challenging his criminal judgment. On August 1, 2016, the Court 15 directed petitioner to show cause why the petition should not be dismissed without prejudice 16 because petitioner had not exhausted his state court remedies. On August 29, 2016, petitioner 17 filed a letter in which he concedes that he has not raised any claims in the California Supreme 18 Court. 19 As the Court previously advised petitioner, prisoners in state custody who wish to 20 collaterally challenge either the fact or length of their confinement in federal habeas corpus 21 proceedings are first required to exhaust state judicial remedies, either on direct appeal or through 22 collateral proceedings, by presenting the highest state court available with a fair opportunity to 23 rule on the merits of each and every claim the prisoners seek to raise in federal court. 28 U.S.C. 24 § 2254(b)-(c). The exhaustion-of-state-remedies doctrine reflects a policy of federal-state comity 25 to give the state “the initial ‘opportunity to pass upon and correct alleged violations of its 26 prisoners’ federal rights.’” Picard v. Connor, 404 U.S. 270, 275 (1971) (citations omitted). The 27 exhaustion requirement is satisfied only if the federal claim has been “fairly presented” to the state 28 courts. See id.; Peterson v. Lampert, 319 F.3d 1153, 1155-56 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc). The 1 state’s highest court must be given an opportunity to rule on the claims even if review is 2 discretionary. See O’Sullivan v. Boerckel, 526 U.S. 838, 845 (1999) (petitioner must invoke “one 3 complete round of the State’s established appellate review process.”). 4 Petitioner does not request that the Court stay and hold his petition in abeyance while he 5 returns to state court to exhaust his claims. Accordingly, the Court DISMISSES the petition 6 without prejudice for failure to exhaust. 7 The federal rules governing habeas cases brought by state prisoners require a district court 8 that denies a habeas petition to grant or deny a certificate of appealability (“COA”) in its ruling. 9 See Rule 11(a), Rules Governing § 2254 Cases, 28 U.S.C. foll. § 2254. Petitioner has not shown “that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the district court was correct in its 11 United States District Court Northern District of California 10 procedural ruling.” Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). Accordingly, a COA is 12 DENIED. 13 Petitioner seeks guidance on how to file his claims in state court. It is petitioner’s 14 responsibility to get his state court petition filed. This Court cannot file the state habeas petition 15 for him. Petitioner is advised that he must present all of his federal claims to the California 16 Supreme Court and wait until he receives a decision from that court before presenting his claims in 17 federal court in a new petition. Petitioner is cautioned to act swiftly to get to state court, proceed 18 through state court, and return to federal court with a new petition so that he does not miss the 19 one-year deadline in the habeas statute of limitations, 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d). 20 The Clerk shall enter judgment and close the file. 21 IT IS SO ORDERED. 22 Dated: 9/22/2016 23 24 HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR. United States District Judge 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?