Camarena, Jr. v. Superior Court of California, County of Santa Clara
Filing
9
ORDER OF DISMISSAL. Signed by Magistrate Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley on 11/9/2016. (ahm, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/9/2016)
1
2
3
4
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
5
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
6
JOSE LUIS CAMARENA, JR.,
7
Case No.16-cv-04289-JSC
Plaintiff,
8
ORDER OF DISMISSAL
v.
9
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA,
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
10
Defendant.
12
INTRODUCTION
13
Petitioner, a prisoner of the State of California proceeding pro se, filed a petition for a writ
14
15
of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging his state court judgment.1 He has paid the
16
filing fee. Because the petition indicates that the claims have not been exhausted, the petition is
17
DISMISSED without prejudice to refiling after the claims have been fairly presented to the
18
California Supreme Court.
19
BACKGROUND
20
In 2011, Petitioner was convicted of forcible rape in Santa Clara County Superior Court
21
22
based upon his guilty plea. The trial court sentenced him to a term of nine years and six months in
23
state prison. He did not file a direct appeal. He filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the
24
Santa Clara County Superior Court seeking to be resentenced to a misdemeanor under Proposition
25
26
27
1
28
Petitioner has consented to the jurisdiction of a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 636(c). (ECF No. 8.)
1
2
47. The petition was denied. He filed no further post-conviction petitions in state or federal court
until he filed the instant petition.
DISCUSSION
3
4
I.
5
6
7
Standard of Review
This Court may entertain a petition for a writ of habeas corpus “in behalf of a person in
custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court only on the ground that he is in custody in
violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a). It
8
9
shall “award the writ or issue an order directing the respondent to show cause why the writ should
not be granted, unless it appears from the application that the applicant or person detained is not
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
10
entitled thereto.” Id. § 2243.
12
II.
13
14
Legal Claims
Petitioner claims: (1) that his rights under Miranda v. Arizona were violated; (2) that he
received ineffective assistance of counsel; (3) that the sentence was longer than he anticipated; and
15
16
17
(4) that there was judicial misconduct.
An application for a federal writ of habeas corpus filed by a prisoner who is in state
18
custody pursuant to a judgment of a state court may not be granted unless the prisoner has first
19
exhausted state judicial remedies, either by way of a direct appeal or in collateral proceedings, by
20
presenting the highest state court available with a fair opportunity to rule on the merits of each and
21
every issue he or she seeks to raise in federal court. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b),(c); Granberry v.
22
Greer, 481 U.S. 129, 133-34 (1987).
23
24
Petitioner indicates in the petition that he has never filed an appeal or any post-conviction
25
petitions, motions or other applications in the California Supreme Court. Indeed, his only
26
challenge to his conviction or sentence was the petition for a writ of habeas corpus filed in the
27
superior court, and that petition did not raise any of the four claims in the instant petition. Before
28
this Court can hear any of Petitioner’s claims for habeas relief, he must first present the California
2
1
Supreme Court --- either in a petition for a writ of habeas corpus or in an appeal from the denial of
2
such a petition from the California Court of Appeal --- with a fair opportunity to rule on such
3
claims. If the claims do not succeed in the California Supreme Court, then Petitioner may raise
4
them in a petition for a writ of habeas corpus filed in this Court. Because Petitioner has not fairly
5
presented his claims to the California Supreme Court, they have not been exhausted and must be
6
dismissed without prejudice.
7
CONCLUSION
8
9
For the foregoing reasons, the petition for a writ of habeas corpus is DISMISSED without
prejudice to refiling after Petitioner has exhausted his claims by fairly presenting them to the
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
10
California Supreme Court.
12
13
14
Rule 11(a) of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases requires a district court to rule on
whether a Petitioner is entitled to a certificate of appealability in the same order in which the
petition is decided. No reasonable jurist would find this Court's dismissal of his claims debatable
15
16
17
18
19
20
or wrong. See Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). Consequently, no certificate of
appealability is warranted in this case.
The clerk shall enter judgment and close the file.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: November 9, 2016
21
22
23
JACQUELINE SCOTT CORLEY
United States Magistrate Judge
24
25
26
27
28
3
1
2
3
4
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
5
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
6
7
JOSE LUIS CAMARENA, JR.,
Case No. 16-cv-04289-JSC
Plaintiff,
8
v.
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
9
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA,
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
10
Defendant.
12
13
14
15
16
17
I, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am an employee in the Office of the Clerk, U.S.
District Court, Northern District of California.
That on November 9, 2016, I SERVED a true and correct copy(ies) of the attached, by
placing said copy(ies) in a postage paid envelope addressed to the person(s) hereinafter listed, by
depositing said envelope in the U.S. Mail, or by placing said copy(ies) into an inter-office delivery
receptacle located in the Clerk's office.
18
19
20
Jose Luis Camarena, Jr. ID: AK-6637
1308 Wabash Street
P.O. Box 357
Alviso, CA 95002
21
22
23
Dated: November 9, 2016
24
25
Susan Y. Soong
Clerk, United States District Court
26
27
28
By:________________________
Ada Means, Deputy Clerk to the
Honorable JACQUELINE SCOTT CORLEY
4
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?