Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-03553/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-03553-0/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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JAMES MARCUS BROWNER, 

Petitioner,

v.

ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER, 

Respondent. /

No. C 06-3553 JSW (PR)

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

Petitioner, a prisoner of the State of California, currently incarcerated at San

Quentin State Prison located in San Quentin, California, filed this action seeking a writ of

habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 regarding his incarceration pursuant to a

finding that he violated parole. He alleges certain constitutional violations in the parole

revocation proceedings. Petitioner has paid the filing fee. 

His petition is now before the Court for review pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §2243 and

Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. However, in the petition, Petitioner 

 states that he has not presented his claims in the state courts regarding his parole revocation

proceedings in the California Supreme Court. 

DISCUSSION

A. Standard of Review

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

Case 3:06-cv-03553-JSW Document 3 Filed 10/16/06 Page 1 of 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

2

custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States." 28

U.S.C. § 2254(a); Rose v. Hodges, 423 U.S. 19, 21 (1975). 

A district court 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. Summary

dismissal is appropriate only where the allegations in the petition are vague or conclusory,

palpably incredible, or patently frivolous or false. See Hendricks v. Vasquez, 908 F.2d

490, 491 (9th Cir. 1990) (quoting Blackledge v. Allison, 431 U.S. 63, 75-76 (1977)). 

B. Petitioner’s Claims

The petition appears to contain claims regarding constitutional violations at his

parole revocation proceedings. Such a claim may present a claim for habeas relief, if

Petitioner has first provided the state courts with a fair opportunity to rule on the claims

raised therein. 

A prisoner in state custody who wishes to challenge either the fact or length of his 

confinement by filing a federal petition for writ of habeas corpus 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

every issue he seeks to raise in federal court. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b),(c); Granberry v.

Greer, 481 U.S. 129, 133-34 (1987). Before he may raise his claims in this Court, after

exhausting his administrative appeals within the BPT, Petitioner must also present his

claims in the state courts, through the Supreme Court of California. As Petitioner has not

presented his claims to the highest state court, he has not exhausted his state court

remedies, and the petition must be dismissed. See Rose, 455 U.S. at 510. 

A dismissal solely for failure to exhaust is not a bar to Petitioner’s returning to

federal court after exhausting available state remedies. See Trimble v. City of Santa Rosa,

49 F.3d 583, 586 (9th Cir. 1995). Accordingly, this petition is DISMISSED without

prejudice to Petitioner’s filing a new federal habeas petition once he has exhausted state

remedies by presenting his claims to the highest state court. As such, the Clerk shall enter

Case 3:06-cv-03553-JSW Document 3 Filed 10/16/06 Page 2 of 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

3

judgment and close the file. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: October 16, 2006 

 JEFFREY S. WHITE

 United States District Judge

Case 3:06-cv-03553-JSW Document 3 Filed 10/16/06 Page 3 of 3