Moore v. People of the State of California

Filing 5

ORDER DISMISSING CASE. Signed by Judge Hon. Lucy H. Koh on 5/5/2016. (sms, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/6/2016)

2

FILED

3

4

MAY 0 6 Z016

5
SUSAN Y. S00NG
DISTRICT COURT
C~ ~~TRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RTH

6

NO

SANJOSE

7
8
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11

ALDEN LAMONT MOORE,

12
13

Petitioner,
vs.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

14

RONALD DAVIS, Warden,

15

No. C 15-5511 LHK (PR)
ORDER OF DISMISSAL

Respondent.
___________________________)

16
17

Petitioner, a California state prisoner proceeding prose, seeks a writ of habeas corpus

18

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. In the underlying federal petition, petitioner challenges the

19

criminal conviction he sustained in 2006 in the Superior Court of Alameda County, and concedes

20

that he has not raised any ofthe claims in the California Supreme Court. On March 9, 2016, the

21

court issued an order to petitioner to show cause within thirty days why the petition should not

22

be dismissed for failure to exhaust state remedies.

23

Petitioner has filed a response, in which he argues against dismissal. Petitioner states

24

that because the California Superior Court denied petitioner's state habeas petition on April 30,

25

2015, petitioner did not pursue further state remedies because petitioner did not believe that he

26

would receive any justice in state court.

27
28

However, as the court previously advised petitioner, prisoners in state custody who wish
to collaterally challenge either the fact or length of their confinement in federal habeas corpus
Order of Dismissal
P:IPRO-SE\LHK\HC.15\Moore511 disexh. wpd

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."' Picardv. Connor, 404 U.S. 270,275 (197I)

7

(citations omitted). The exhaustion requirement is satisfied only ifthe federal claim has been

8

"fairly presented" to the state courts. See id.; Peterson v. Lampert, 3I9 F.3d II 53, II 55-56 (9th

9

Cir. 2003) (en bane). The state's highest court must be given an opportunity to rule on the

IO

claims even ifreview is discretionary. See O'Sullivan v. Boerckel, 526 U.S. 838, 845 (1999)

II

(petitioner must invoke "one complete round of the State's established appellate review

I2

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

I4

(2005).

I5

Petitioner concedes that he has not presented any of the federal claims regarding

16

petitioner's 2006 conviction to the California Supreme Court. Thus, petitioner has not fairly

I7

presented his claims in the underlying federal petition of habeas corpus to the highest state court.

18

Accordingly, the court DISMISSES this action without prejudice for failure to exhaust.

I9

The Clerk shall terminate all pending motions and close the case.

20

The federal rules governing habeas cases brought by state prisoners require a district

2I

court that denies a habeas petition to grant or deny a certificate of appealability ("CO A'') in its

22

ruling. See Rule li(a), Rules Governing§ 2254 Cases, 28 U.S.C. foiL § 2254. Petitioner has

23

not shown "that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the district court was correct in

24

its procedural ruling." Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). Accordingly, a COA is

25

DENIED.

26
27

IT IS S

DATED:

ORDERED.

~ S

·2J)

l~
United States District Judge

28
Order of Dismissal
P:\PRO-SE\LHK\HC.I5\Moore511 disexh.wpd

2