Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-04270/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-04270-0/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

MARK BRADY,

Petitioner,

v.

GEORGE LAYMAN, 

Commissioner; et al.,

Respondents.

 /

No. C 05-4270 SI (pr)

ORDER OF DISMISSAL 

Mark Brady 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 is now before the court

for review pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §2243 and Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases.

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). Brady has not done so; nor has he presented any exceptional circumstances

to excuse his doing so. See id. 

Brady'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
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 2

a fair opportunity to rule on the merits of his claims concerning his parole revocation. Brady

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, the petition is DISMISSED without prejudice to Brady filing a

new habeas action after available state judicial remedies are exhausted. The dismissal also is

without prejudice to Brady filing a motion for relief in Valdivia v. Schwarzenegger, E. D. Cal. No.

Civ. S-94-0671 LKK\GGH if he believes there has been a violation of an order in that action. In

light of the dismissal of this action for failure to exhaust, Brady's motion to treat the petition as

an emergency situation is DENIED. (Docket # 7.) 

The in forma pauperis application is DENIED. (Docket # 2.) 

The clerk shall close the file.

 IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: December 2, 2005 

 SUSAN ILLSTON

United States District Judge