Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_08-cv-02277/USCOURTS-cand-3_08-cv-02277-0/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

For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LESLIE HOOD, III,

Petitioner,

v.

CALIFORNIA DEPT. 

OF CORRECTIONS; et al.,

 Respondents. /

No. C 08-2277 MHP (pr)

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

Leslie Hood, III, has filed a pro se petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 2254, in which he challenges the revocation of his parole. His petition and

amended petition are now before the court for review pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §2243 and Rule

4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. His in forma pauperis application also is

before the court for consideration.

Prisoners in state custody who wish to challenge either the fact or length of their

confinement in federal court by a petition for writ of habeas corpus are first required to

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 every issue they seek to raise in federal court. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b),(c); Granberry

v. Greer, 481 U.S. 129, 133-34 (1987). Hood has not done so; nor has he presented any

exceptional circumstances to excuse his doing so. See id.

Case 3:08-cv-02277-MHP Document 7 Filed 09/25/08 Page 1 of 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

2

Hood's petition shows that he has not filed a petition for review or a petition for writ

of habeas corpus in the California Supreme Court. The California Supreme Court has not

been given a fair opportunity to rule on the merits of his claims concerning his parole

revocation. Hood must file a state habeas petition (or a petition for review, if it is not too

late) and give the California Supreme Court a fair opportunity to rule on the merits of all his

claims before presenting his claims in a federal habeas petition. 

For the foregoing reasons, this action is DISMISSED without prejudice to Hood filing

a new habeas action after available state judicial remedies are exhausted. 

The in forma pauperis application is GRANTED. (Docket # 5.) 

The clerk shall close the file.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: September 24, 2008 

Marilyn Hall Patel

United States District Judge

 

Case 3:08-cv-02277-MHP Document 7 Filed 09/25/08 Page 2 of 2