Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_08-cv-02692/USCOURTS-cand-4_08-cv-02692-0/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CHARLES WANG,

Petitioner,

 vs.

TANYAN SMITH; JUDGE KENNETH

SHAPIRO; ADMIR ALUM, Assistant

District Attorney; and Officer ZEN,

Respondents. /

No. C 08-2692 PJH (PR)

ORDER FOR PETITIONER TO

SHOW CAUSE WHY PETITION

SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED

FOR FAILURE TO EXHAUST

Petitioner, a California state inmate, has filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. He has paid the filing fee.

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 available 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). Petitioner has the

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

1103, 1104 (9th Cir. 1981).

Petitioner alleges that his conviction was reversed in part and affirmed in part by the

California Court of Appeal, and that his attempt to petition for review by the California

Supreme Court failed because his mail did not get through to the court. Pet. at 3,

(unnumbered) 7. He also has left blank the portion of the form petition that asks if he has

filed any other proceedings other than the appeal and, if so, what they were. Id. at 4-5. A

Case 4:08-cv-02692-PJH Document 9 Filed 08/05/08 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

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.

2

review of the California Supreme Court’s website reveals no cases by petitioner.

Although one of petitioner’s claims is that he was prevented from appealing to the

California Supreme Court, which if true would have prevented him from exhausting his

claims by way of direct appeal, he does not provide any reason why he could not have

exhausted by way of state habeas petitions.1 It thus appears he has not complied with the

exhaustion requirement. Unless he can show that he has done so, or provide a basis for

avoiding the requirement, this case must be dismissed. 

Within thirty days of the date this order is entered petitioner shall show cause why

this petition should not be dismissed for failure to exhaust. If he does not, the case will be

dismissed. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 5, 2008. 

 PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON

United States District Judge

G:\PRO-SE\PJH\HC.08\WANG2692.OSC-P.wpd

Case 4:08-cv-02692-PJH Document 9 Filed 08/05/08 Page 2 of 2