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)

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