Moore v. People of the State of California
Filing
3
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE. Answer due by 4/8/2016. Signed by Judge Hon. Lucy H. Koh on 3/8/2016. (sms, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/9/2016) (Additional attachment(s) added on 3/9/2016: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service) (sms, COURT STAFF).
1
2
3
4
FILED
5
MAR DQ 2016
6
7
8
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
ALDEN LAMONT MOORE,
11
Petitioner,
12
vs.
13
RONALD DAVIS, Warden,
14
15
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
No. C 15-5511 LHK (PR)
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY
PETITION SHOULD NOT BE
DISMISSED FOR FAlLURE TO
EXHAUST STATE REMEDIES
Respondent.
__________________________)
16
Petitioner, a California state prisoner proceeding pro se, seeks a writ of habeas corpus
17
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 1 Petitioner has paid the filing fee. The court issues an order to
18
show cause for petitioner to demonstrate why the petition should not be dismissed without
19
prejudice because he has not exhausted his state court remedies.
20
BACKGROUND
21
In the underlying federal petition, petitioner challenges the criminal conviction he
22
sustained in 2006 in the Superior Court of Alameda County. Petitioner concedes that he has not
23
raised any claims in the California Supreme Court.
24
25
26
27
28
1
Pursuant to Rule 25(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Ronald Davis, the
current warden of San Quentin State Prison, where petitioner is currently incarcerated, is hereby
SUBSTITUTED as respondent.
Order to Show Cause Why Petition Should Not Be Dismissed for Failure to Exhaust State Remedies
P:\PRO-SE\LHK\HC.I5\Moore511 oscexh. wpd
1
2
DISCUSSION
Prisoners in state custody who wish to collaterally challenge either the fact or length of
3
their confinement in federal habeas corpus proceedings are first required to exhaust state judicial
4
remedies, either on direct appeal or through collateral proceedings, by presenting the highest
5
state court available with a fair opportunity to rule on the merits of each and every claim they
6
seek to raise in federal court. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)-(c).
7
Petitioner has conceded that he has not presented the California Supreme Court with an
8
opportunity to rule on the merits of the claims he presents in the underlying federal habeas
9
petition. Thus, the court issues an order to show cause for petitioner to demonstrate why the
10
petition should not be dismissed without prejudice to refiling once he exhausts his federal claims
11
in state court.
12
13
CONCLUSION
Petitioner shall file a response to this order to show cause within thirty (30) days of the
14
filing date of this order addressing: (1) whether he has a state habeas petition, appeal, or other
15
post-conviction proceeding now pending before the state court; and, if so, (2) which level of
16
state court and whether the underlying petition challenges the same commitment at issue in his
17
pending state case(s). Failure to file a timely response will result in the court dismissing the
18
instant petition without prejudice for failure to exhaust state court remedies.
19
It is petitioner's responsibility to prosecute this case. Petitioner must keep the court and
20
all parties informed of any change of address by filing a separate paper captioned "Notice of
21
Change of Address." He must comply with the court's orders in a timely fashion. Failure to do
22
so may result in the dismissal of this action for failure to prosecute pursuant to Federal Rule of
23
Civil Procedure 41 (b).
24
25
26
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED:
3/ 'l; ~2D ( b
United States District Judge
27
28
Order to Show Cause Why Petition Should Not Be Dismissed for Failure to Exhaust State Remedies
P:\PRO-SE\LHK\HC.l5\Moore511 oscexh. 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?