Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_06-cv-07312/USCOURTS-cand-4_06-cv-07312-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 28:2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1 In California, the supreme court, intermediate courts of appeal, and superior courts

all have original habeas corpus jurisdiction. See Nino v. Galaza, 183 F.3d 1003, 1006 n.2 (9th

Cir. 1999). Although a superior court order denying habeas corpus relief is non-appealable,

a state prisoner may file a new habeas corpus petition in the court of appeals. See id. If the

court of appeals denies relief, the petitioner may seek review in the California Supreme Court

by way of a petition for review, or may instead file an original habeas petition in the supreme

court. See id. at n.3.

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

NOT FOR CITATION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

FRANCISCO E. RUBIO, JR.,

Petitioner,

 v.

RICHARD J. KIRKLAND, Warden,

Respondent. /

No. C 06-7312 PJH (PR)

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

This is a habeas case which originally was filed in the United States District Court for

the Eastern District of California, which transferred it here. Petitioner’s allegations

established that his claims are not exhausted, so the case must be dismissed.

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 may not be granted unless the prisoner has

first exhausted state judicial remedies, either by way of a direct appeal or in collateral

proceedings, by presenting the highest state court available1

 with a fair opportunity to rule

on the merits of each and every issue he or she seeks to raise in federal court. See 28

U.S.C. § 2254(b),(c); Granberry v. Greer, 481 U.S. 129, 133-34 (1987). A petitioner has

the burden of pleading exhaustion in his habeas petition. Cartwright v. Cupp, 650 F.2d

1103, 1104 (9th Cir. 1981).

Petitioner challenges the results of a rules violation hearing in which he lost 365

Case 4:06-cv-07312-PJH Document 3 Filed 12/08/06 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2 Petitioner should carefully note the possible application of the statute of limitations

contained in 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d). Petitions filed by prisoners challenging non-capital state

convictions or sentences must be filed within one year of the latest of the dates on which: (1)

the judgment became final after the conclusion of direct review or the time passed for seeking

direct review; (2) an impediment to filing an application created by unconstitutional state action

was removed, if such action prevented petitioner from filing; (3) the constitutional right asserted

was recognized by the Supreme Court, if the right was newly recognized by the Supreme

Court and made retroactive to cases on collateral review; or (4) the factual predicate of the

claim could have been discovered through the exercise of due diligence. 28 U.S.C. §

2244(d)(1). Time during which a properly filed application for collateral review, for instance a

state habeas petition, is pending is excluded from the one-year time limit. See id. § 2244(d)(2).

The time a federal petition, such as this one, is pending is not excluded. See Duncan v.

Walker, 121 S. Ct. 2120, 2129 (2001).

2

days of good time. In the form petition he states that he filed state habeas petitions in

California Superior Court and in the California Court of Appeal. He does not allege that he

appealed from the denial of his petition in the court of appeal or filed an original petition in

the California Supreme Court. He also has checked the “no” box to a question which asks

whether he has filed any other postconviction petitions, applications or motions in any

court. It is thus clear that he has not presented his claim to the highest state court

available, the Supreme Court of California. 

This case is DISMISSED without prejudice to filing a new federal petition after

available state judicial remedies are exhausted.2 Petitioner may disregard the clerk’s notice

regarding the filing fee sent to him on November 28, 2006.

The clerk shall close the file.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 8, 2006. 

 PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON

United States District Judge

G:\PRO-SE\PJH\HC.06\RUBIO312.DSM-EXH

Case 4:06-cv-07312-PJH Document 3 Filed 12/08/06 Page 2 of 2