Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_12-cv-02333/USCOURTS-casd-3_12-cv-02333-2/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 

12 DEC -7 AM II: 23 

- I COURT 

l; Lif O~lii~"" 

OEPUTY 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

MICHAEL DWAYNE TRYALS, 

Petitioner, 

v. 

MATTHEW CATE, Secretary, et aI., 

Respondents. 

Civil No. 12cv2333-BEN (RBB) 

ORDER: 

(1) DENYING MOTION TO PROCEED 

IN FORMA PAUPERIS; 

(2) DENYING MOTION FOR STAY 

AND ABEYANCE; AND 

(3) DISMISSING PETITION WITHOUT 

FURTHER LEAVE TO AMEND BUT 

WITHOUT PREJUDICE 

On September 24, 2012, Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed a Petition for 

a Writ ofHabeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, along with a motion for leave to proceed 

in forma pauperis and a motion for stay and abeyance. On October 12,2012, the Court denied 

the motion to proceed in forma pauperis because Petitioner had sufficient funds in his account 

to pay the $5.00 filing fee. (ECF No.5.) The Court dismissed the Petition because Petitioner 

had not satisfied the filing fee requirement and had failed to name a proper respondent, and 

denied the motion for stay as moot. (Id.) Petitioner was granted leave to renew his motion for 

stay and was informed of the requirements for showing an entitlement to a stay. (ECF No.4.) 

Petitioner has now filed a First Amended Petition along with a renewed motion to proceed in 

forma pauperis and a renewed motion for stay and abeyance. (ECF Nos. 6-8.) 

-1- 12cv2333 

Case 3:12-cv-02333-BEN-RBB Document 9 Filed 12/07/12 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 

Petitioner's prior motion to proceed in forma pauperis was denied because his prison trust 

account certificate indicated that he had a sufficient balance in his prison trust account to pay 

the $5.00 filing fee. (ECF No.5.) The renewed motion to proceed in forma pauperis also 

indicates that he has sufficient funds to pay the filing fee. (ECF No.7.) Accordingly, the Court 

DENIES the request to proceed in forma pauperis. Because this Court cannot proceed until 

Petitioner has either paid the $5.00 filing fee or qualified to proceed in forma pauperis, the Court 

DISMISSES the case without prejudice. See Rule 3(a), 28 U.S.C. foIL § 2254. 

The Petition is also subject to dismissal because it contains only unexhausted claims. 

Habeas petitioners who wish to challenge either their state court conviction or the length oftheir 

confinement in state prison must first exhaust state judicial remedies. 28 U .S.C. § 2254(b), (c); 

Granberry v. Greer, 481 U.S. 129, 133-34 (1987). To exhaust state judicial remedies, a 

California state prisoner must present the California Supreme Court with a fair opportunity to 

rule on the merits ofevery issue raised in his or her federal habeas petition. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b), 

(c); Granberry, 481 U.S. at 133-34. Moreover, to properly exhaust state court remedies a 

petitioner must allege, in state court, how one or more of his or her federal rights have been 

violated. The Supreme Court in Duncan v. Henry, 513 U.S. 364 (1995) reasoned: "Ifstate 

courts are to be given the opportunity to correct alleged violations ofprisoners' federal rights, 

they must surely be alerted to the fact that the prisoners are asserting claims under the United 

States Constitution." Id. at 365-66 (emphasis added). For example, "[i]f a habeas petitioner 

wishes to claim that an evidentiary ruling at a state court trial denied him [ or her] the due process 

of law guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment, he [or she] must say so, not only in federal 

court, but in state court." Id. at 366 (emphasis added). 

Here, Petitioner indicates that he has presented his claims to the state superior court, but 

that he has not yet raised his claims in the California appellate or supreme courts. (See Pet. at 

3-5.) Accordingly, the Petition is subject to dismissal for failure to exhaust state court remedies. 

See Rasberry v. Garcia, 448 FJd 1150, 1154 (9th Cir. 2006) ("Once a district court determines 

that a habeas petition contains only unexhausted claims, it need not inquire further into the 

petitioner's intentions. Instead, it may simply dismiss the habeas petition for failure to 

-2- 12cv2333 

Case 3:12-cv-02333-BEN-RBB Document 9 Filed 12/07/12 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 

exhaust."), citing Jiminez v. Rice, 276 F.3d 478, 481 (9th Cir. 2001). Although Petitioner 

requests a stay ofhis Petition until he has presented his claims to the state appellate and supreme 

courts, because the Petition contains only unexhausted claims and is therefore subject to 

dismissal, this Court cannot stay the Petition. Petitioner's renewed motion for stay and abeyance 

is therefore DENIED. 

Rule 4 ofthe Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases provides for summary dismissal ofa 

habeas petition "[i]fit plainly appears from the face ofthe petition and any attached exhibits that 

the petitioner is not entitled to relief in the district court ..." Rule 4, 28 U.S.C. foll. § 2254. 

Here, it appears plain from the Petition that Petitioner is not presently entitled to federal habeas 

relief because he has not alleged exhaustion of state court remedies. 

CONCLUSION AND ORDER 

The motion to proceed in forma pauperis is DENIED, the motion for stay is DENIED, 

and the Petition is DISMISSED without leave to amend for failure to satisfY the filing fee 

requirement and for failure to allege exhaustion ofstate court remedies. The dismissal is without 

prejudice to Petitioner to file a new habeas petition which will be given a new civil case number 

after he has exhausted his state court remedies. 

The Clerk of Court shall close the file. 

IT IS SO ORDERED 

DATED: December ~ ,012 

Copies 10: ALL PARTIES 

-3- 12cv2333 

Case 3:12-cv-02333-BEN-RBB Document 9 Filed 12/07/12 Page 3 of 3