Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-05870/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-05870-0/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)

---

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

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ROBERT DRAWN,

Plaintiff,

v.

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF 

CALIFORNIA,

Defendant.

Case No. 15-cv-05870-SI 

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

Re: Dkt. No. 1

Petitioner was convicted in Alameda County Superior Court of murder and other crimes, 

and was sentenced to 84 years to life in prison on December 11, 2015. He then filed a petition for 

writ of habeas corpus, which is now before the court for review pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2243 and 

Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. This order dismisses the extremely premature 

petition.

This court may entertain a petition for writ of habeas corpus “in behalf of a person in 

custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court only on the ground that he is in custody in 

violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a). A 

district court considering an application for a writ of habeas corpus shall “award the writ or issue 

an order directing the respondent to show cause why the writ should not be granted, unless it 

appears from the application that the applicant or person detained is not entitled thereto.” 28 

U.S.C. § 2243. 

The exhaustion rule requires that a prisoner in state custody who wishes to challenge 

collaterally in federal habeas proceedings either the fact or length of his confinement must first 

exhaust state judicial remedies, either on direct appeal or through collateral proceedings, by 

presenting the highest state court available with a fair opportunity to rule on the merits of each and 

Case 3:15-cv-05870-SI Document 7 Filed 02/24/16 Page 1 of 3
2

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

Northern District of California

every claim he seeks to raise in federal court. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b),(c); Rose v. Lundy, 455 

U.S. 509, 515-16 (1982). The exhaustion-of-state-remedies doctrine reflects a policy of federalstate comity to give the state “an initial opportunity to pass upon and correct alleged violations of 

its prisoners' federal rights.” Picard v. Connor, 404 U.S. 270, 275 (1971) (citations an internal 

quotation marks omitted). Although the exhaustion requirement is not jurisdictional and instead 

is a matter of comity, see Granberry v. Greer, 481 U.S. 129, 133-34 (1987), a district court 

generally may not grant relief on an unexhausted claim, see 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(1). 

Petitioner’s federal petition for writ of habeas corpus is extremely premature. On the very 

day his sentence was imposed, he wrote his petition for writ of habeas corpus and sent it to this 

court. His appeal has not yet been briefed, and it does not appear that any petition for writ of 

habeas corpus has been filed in or ruled upon by the California Supreme Court. Petitioner has 

never fairly presented to the California Supreme Court any of the claims that are in his federal 

petition and therefore has not exhausted any of his claims. The court will not stay the extremely 

premature fully unexhausted petition. See Rose v. Lundy, 455 U.S. at 510.

Under Rhines v. Weber, 544 U.S. 269, 277-78), the court may stay a petition while a 

petitioner returns to state court to exhaust state court remedies. A Rhines stay “is only appropriate 

when the district court determines there was good cause for the petitioner’s failure to exhaust his 

claims first in state court,” the claims are not meritless, and there are no intentionally dilatory 

tactics by petitioner. The Ninth Circuit very recently ruled that a petitioner with a fully 

unexhausted petition might be able to invoke the stay and abeyance procedure in Rhines. See 

Mena v. Long, No. 14-55102, slip op. at 3 (9th Cir. Feb. 17, 2016). Petitioner has not sought a 

Rhines stay, nor does such a stay appear necessary because he currently is nowhere near the end of 

the one-year statute of limitations deadline to file a federal petition for writ of habeas corpus. See

Rhines, 544 U.S. at 277 (employing the stay and abeyance procedure too frequently “undermines 

AEDPA’s goal of streamlining federal habeas proceedings by decreasing a petitioner’s incentive 

to exhaust all his claims in state court prior to filing his federal petition.”) Under the

circumstances in this case, where the statute of limitations period has not even started (because 

petitioner’s judgment has not become final upon the conclusion of direct review, see 28 U.S.C. 

Case 3:15-cv-05870-SI Document 7 Filed 02/24/16 Page 2 of 3
3

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

Northern District of California

§ 2244(d)(1)), there is not good cause to support a Rhines stay.

This action is DISMISSED without prejudice to petitioner filing a new petition after he 

exhausts state court remedies as to each claim contained in his new petition. Because this action is 

being dismissed today, petitioner should not file an amended petition in this action after he 

exhausts state court remedies. Instead, he should file a new petition and leave the case number 

blank. A new case number will be assigned to the new petition when he returns after exhausting 

his state court remedies. Petitioner is urged to act diligently to present his claims in state court 

through direct appeal and, if appropriate, state habeas proceedings, and then file a new federal 

petition for writ of habeas corpus to avoid being barred by the one-year statute of limitations for 

federal habeas actions in 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d). 

This action is DISMISSED for the separate and independent reason that petitioner failed to 

pay the filing fee or submit a completed in forma pauperis application. 

The clerk shall close the file.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 24, 2016

______________________________________

SUSAN ILLSTON

United States District Judge

Case 3:15-cv-05870-SI Document 7 Filed 02/24/16 Page 3 of 3