Summary
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of California recommends dismissing without prejudice a civil detainee’s habeas petition for failure to exhaust state judicial remedies. The court also directs the clerk to randomly assign the action to a district judge and advises the petitioner regarding objections to the recommendation.
Holdings
- A petitioner seeking federal habeas relief while in state custody must provide the highest state court a full and fair opportunity to consider each claim before presenting it to federal court; because petitioner appeared not to have sought relief in the California Supreme Court, the petition was unexhausted.
- The court may dismiss a habeas petition at preliminary review when it plainly appears from the petition and attached exhibits that the petitioner is not entitled to relief; the petition was therefore properly recommended for dismissal without prejudice for failure to exhaust.
Questions Presented
- Whether the federal habeas petition should be dismissed without prejudice because petitioner failed to exhaust available state judicial remedies.
- Whether the court could dismiss the petition at the preliminary-review stage under Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases.
Disposition
dismissed
Cases Cited (9)
- Dominguez v. Kernan, 906 F.3d 1127, 1135 n.9 (9th Cir. 2018)(followed)
- Coleman v. Thompson, 501 U.S. 722, 731 (1991)(followed)
- Rose v. Lundy, 455 U.S. 509, 518 (1982)(followed)
- O’Sullivan v. Boerckel, 526 U.S. 838, 845 (1999)(followed)
- Duncan v. Henry, 513 U.S. 364, 365 (1995)(followed)
- Picard v. Connor, 404 U.S. 270, 276 (1971)(followed)
- Carden v. Montana, 626 F.2d 82, 83 (9th Cir. 1980)(followed)
- Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 839 (9th Cir. 2014)(followed)
- Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)(followed)
Cited In (0)
No citing cases on record yet.
Court Document
Open PDFLoading document…