Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_08-cv-01644/USCOURTS-cand-3_08-cv-01644-0/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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SHIRLEY V. REMMERT,

Petitioner,

 v.

SHERIFF GREG MUNKS,

Respondent. /

No. C 08-01644 CRB

ORDER GRANTING IFP AND

DISMISSING PETITION FOR

FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM

Now pending before the Court is petitioner’s application to proceed in forma pauperis

(“IFP”). A court may authorize a litigant to prosecute an action in federal court without

prepayment of fees or security if the litigant submits an affidavit showing that he or she is

unable to pay such fees or give security therefor. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). Petitioner has

submitted the required documentation, and it is evident from her application that her assets

and income are insufficient to enable plaintiff to prosecute the action.

Viewing petitioner’s application in isolation, it appears that she should be allowed to

proceed IFP. A court is under a continuing duty, however, to dismiss a case whenever it

determines that the action “(I) is frivolous or malicious; (ii) fails to state a claim on which

relief may be granted; or (iii) seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from

such relief.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(I)-- (iii).

Remmert’s petition arises out of her June 27, 2007 conviction and sentence. 

Case 3:08-cv-01644-CRB Document 11 Filed 05/12/08 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

G:\CRBALL\2008\1644\orderdismissingpetition.wpd 2

Remmert alleges that she appealed the conviction. Indeed, she has submitted portions of her

appellant brief which was filed on January 17, 2008 with the Appellate Department of the

Superior Court of San Mateo County. She also alleges that the grounds for her appeal before

the state Appellate Department are the same as those she is raising in the pending habeas

petition before this Court. Remmert does not allege that the state court has ruled on her

appeal; indeed, she specifically represents that her appeal is currently pending in the 

Appellate Department of the Superior Court of San Mateo. 

Remmert’s petition must be dismissed because she has not exhausted her state

remedies. To properly exhaust her state remedies she must use California’s established

review procedures before she presents her claims to a federal court. See O’Sullivan v.

Boerckel, 526 U.S. 838, 845 (1999). She has not fully used those procedures as the state

Appellate Department of the Superior Court of San Mateo has not yet ruled on her appeal. It

is thus premature for this Court to proceed. Remmert’s filing of state habeas petitions which

were denied does not excuse her obligation to comply with the regular appellate process. 

Accordingly, the petition and Remmert’s several pending motions are DISMISSED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 12, 2008 

CHARLES R. BREYER

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:08-cv-01644-CRB Document 11 Filed 05/12/08 Page 2 of 2