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)

Download PDF
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

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?