Causey v. Alameda County Superior Court

Filing 5

ORDER DISMISSING CASE AND DENYING A CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY. Signed by Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers on 5/10/2022. (amg, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/10/2022)Any non-CM/ECF Participants have been served by First Class Mail to the addresses of record listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF)

Case 4:22-cv-00265-YGR Document 5 Filed 05/10/22 Page 1 of 3

1
2
3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

5
LAMAR CAUSEY,

6

Petitioner,

7
v.

8

10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

Respondent.
I.

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23

ORDER DISMISSING CASE AND
DENYING A CERTIFICATE OF
APPEALABILITY

ALAMEDA COUNTY SUPERIOR
COURT,

9

11

Case No. 22-cv-00265-YGR (PR)

INTRODUCTION
Petitioner proceeds with a pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§ 2254. The Court ordered petitioner to show cause why the case should not be dismissed as
unexhausted. Dkt. 4. To date, petitioner has not filed a response, and the deadline for doing so
has passed.
II.

DISCUSSION
A.

Standard of Review

This court may entertain a petition for 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); Rose v.
Hodges, 423 U.S. 19, 21 (1975). Habeas corpus petitions must meet heightened pleading
requirements. McFarland v. Scott, 512 U.S. 849, 856 (1994). An application for a federal writ of
habeas corpus filed by a prisoner who is in state custody pursuant to a judgment of a state court

24

must “specify all the grounds for relief available to the petitioner . . . [and] state the facts

25

supporting each ground.” Rule 2(c) of the Rules Governing § 2254 Cases, 28 U.S.C. foll. § 2254.

26

“‘[N]otice’ pleading is not sufficient, for the petition is expected to state facts that point to a ‘real

27

possibility of constitutional error.’” Rule 4 Advisory Committee Notes (quoting Aubut v. Maine,

28

Case 4:22-cv-00265-YGR Document 5 Filed 05/10/22 Page 2 of 3

1

431 F.2d 688, 689 (1st Cir. 1970)). “[H]abeas petitions which appear on their face to be legally

2

insufficient are subject to summary dismissal.” Calderon v. United States Dist. Court (Nicolaus),

3

98 F.3d 1102, 1108 (9th Cir. 1996) (Schroeder, J., concurring).

4

B.

5

Before he may challenge either the fact or length of his confinement in a habeas petition in

Analysis

6

this Court, petitioner must present to the California Supreme Court any claims he wishes to raise

7

in this Court. See Rose v. Lundy, 455 U.S. 509, 522 (1982) (holding every claim raised in federal

8

habeas petition must be exhausted). The general rule is that a federal district court must dismiss a

9

federal habeas petition containing any claim as to which state remedies have not been exhausted.

10

Id.
A fully unexhausted federal habeas petition may not be stayed and must be dismissed. See,

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12

e.g., Rasberry v. Garcia, 448 F.3d 1150, 1154 (9th Cir. 2006) (holding that a fully unexhausted

13

petition may not be stayed and observing: “Once a district court determines that a habeas petition

14

contains only unexhausted claims, it need not inquire further as to the petitioner’s intentions.

15

Instead, it may simply dismiss the habeas petition for failure to exhaust.”); Jones v. McDaniel, 320

16

Fed. Appx. 784, 786 (9th Cir.2009) (affirming the dismissal of a fully unexhausted petition and

17

denial of a stay, because a “Rhines1 stay is only available for a mixed habeas petition where at

18

least some claims have been exhausted, and none of [petitioner’s] claims were exhausted”).
It appeared that petitioner had presented a fully unexhausted petition. In his petition,

19
20

petitioner asserted that he had not appealed his conviction in state court. Dkt. 1 at 2-3. Petitioner

21

was provided an opportunity to demonstrate that the claims had been exhausted or to file an

22

amended petition raising exhausted claims. Petitioner has not filed a response or otherwise

23

communicated with the Court.

24

III.

25
26

CONCLUSION
The petition is DISMISSED without prejudice, and may be re-filed once the claims have

been exhausted.

27
28

1

Rhines v. Weber, 544 U.S. 269 (2005).
2

Case 4:22-cv-00265-YGR Document 5 Filed 05/10/22 Page 3 of 3

1

Because reasonable jurists would not find the result here debatable, a certificate of

2

appealability (“COA”) is DENIED. See Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484-85 (2000)

3

(standard for COA).

4

The Clerk of the Court shall close the file.

5

IT IS SO ORDERED.

6

Dated: May 10, 2022

___________________________________
JUDGE YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS
United States District Judge

7
8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3