Bennett v. U.S. Government
Filing
8
*****FILED IN ERROR*****SEE DOCKET NUMBER 10*****ORDER OF DISMISSAL. Signed by Judge Lucy H. Koh on 12/4/13. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service)(mpb, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/4/2013) Modified on 12/4/2013 (mpb, COURT STAFF).
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
DAVID BENNETT,
11
Petitioner,
12
vs.
13
GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEE, etc.
14
Respondents.
15
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
No. C 13-3641 LHK (PR)
ORDER OF DISMISSAL
16
Petitioner, a California state prisoner proceeding pro se, seeks a writ of habeas corpus
17
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. In the underlying federal petition, petitioner challenged the
18
criminal judgment against him, and conceded that he had not raised any claims in the California
19
Supreme Court. On October 4, 2013, the court issued an order to petitioner to show cause why
20
the petition should not be dismissed for failure to exhaust state remedies. On October 16, 2013,
21
petitioner filed a response, conceding that his federal petition challenged the same commitment
22
as that which he had recently been found guilty. Petitioner also stated that he exhausted his
23
criminal remedies after raising his constitutional issues at trial. On November 18, 2013,
24
petitioner filed a “Notice of transfer,” in which he stated that, on November 4, 2013, petitioner
25
was sentenced to state prison and would soon be transferred.
26
As the court previously advised petitioner, prisoners in state custody who wish to
27
collaterally challenge either the fact or length of their confinement in federal habeas corpus
28
Order of Dismissal
G:\PRO-SE\LHK\HC.13\Bennett641disexh.wpd
1
proceedings are first required to exhaust state judicial remedies, either on direct appeal or
2
through collateral proceedings, by presenting the highest state court available with a fair
3
opportunity to rule on the merits of each and every claim the prisoners seek to raise in federal
4
court. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)-(c). The exhaustion-of-state-remedies doctrine reflects a policy of
5
federal-state comity to give the state “the initial ‘opportunity to pass upon and correct alleged
6
violations of its prisoners’ federal rights.’” Picard v. Connor, 404 U.S. 270, 275 (1971)
7
(citations omitted). The exhaustion requirement is satisfied only if the federal claim has been
8
“fairly presented” to the state courts. See id.; Peterson v. Lampert, 319 F.3d 1153, 1155-56 (9th
9
Cir. 2003) (en banc). The state’s highest court must be given an opportunity to rule on the
10
claims even if review is discretionary. See O’Sullivan v. Boerckel, 526 U.S. 838, 845 (1999)
11
(petitioner must invoke “one complete round of the State’s established appellate review
12
process.”). A federal district court must dismiss a federal habeas petition containing any claim
13
as to which state remedies have not been exhausted. See Rhines v. Webber, 544 U.S. 269, 273
14
(2005).
15
Petitioner has recently been convicted and sentenced. Petitioner clearly has not yet
16
completed a direct appeal, nor pursued any other state proceeding challenging his criminal
17
conviction. Thus, it appears that petitioner has not fairly presented his claims in the underlying
18
federal petition of habeas corpus to the highest state court. Accordingly, the court DISMISSES
19
this action without prejudice for failure to exhaust.
20
The federal rules governing habeas cases brought by state prisoners require a district
21
court that denies a habeas petition to grant or deny a certificate of appealability (“COA”) in its
22
ruling. See Rule 11(a), Rules Governing § 2254 Cases, 28 U.S.C. foll. § 2254. Petitioner has
23
not shown “that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the petition states a valid claim
24
of the denial of a constitutional right.” Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000).
25
Accordingly, a COA is DENIED.
26
27
IT IS SO ORDERED.
12/4/13
DATED: _______________
LUCY H. KOH
United States District Judge
28
Order of Dismissal
G:\PRO-SE\LHK\HC.13\Bennett641disexh.wpd
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?