Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-00865/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-00865-0/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

17cv0865 JLS (PCL)

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

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MIGUEL ANGEL TORRES,

Petitioner,

v.

RAYMOND MADDEN, Warden,

Respondent.

Case No. 17cv0865 JLS (PCL)

ORDER (1) DISMISSING CASE 

WITHOUT PREJUDICE, AND (2)

GIVING NOTICE OF OPTIONS DUE 

TO FAILURE TO EXHAUST STATE 

COURT REMEDIES

Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas 

Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254.

FAILURE TO SATISFY THE FILING FEE REQUIREMENT

Petitioner has failed to pay the $5.00 filing fee and has failed to move 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 PRJEUDICE. See Rule 3(a), 28 U.S.C. foll. § 2254. If Petitioner wishes to 

proceed with this case, he must submit, no later than July 7, 2017, a copy of this Order 

with the $5.00 fee or with adequate proof of his inability to pay the fee. 

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

Case 3:17-cv-00865-JLS-RBM Document 2 Filed 05/09/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 6
2

17cv0865 JLS (PCL)

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

FAILURE TO ALLEGE EXHAUSTION OF STATE COURT REMEDIES AS TO 

ALL CLAIMS IN THE PETITION 

In addition, habeas petitioners who wish to challenge either their state court 

conviction or the length of their 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 of every 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 reasoned: “If state courts are to be given the opportunity to correct alleged 

violations of prisoners’ federal rights, they must surely be alerted to the fact that the 

prisoners are asserting claims under the United States Constitution.” 513 U.S. 364, 365–66

(1995) (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).

Of the five claims presented in the Petition, Petitioner indicates he has presented 

claims one, two, and three to the California Supreme Court, but has not indicated that he 

presented claims four and five to that court. (See Pet. at 20–26.) It appears, therefore, that 

Petitioner has filed a “mixed” petition; that is, one which presents both exhausted and 

unexhausted claims. In Rose v. Lundy, the United States Supreme Court held that a mixed 

petition is subject to dismissal because it violates the “total exhaustion rule” required in 

habeas petitions brought pursuant to § 2254, but that a petitioner must be permitted an 

opportunity to cure that defect prior to dismissal. 455 U.S. 509, 514–20 (1982). 

Having preliminarily determined the Petition contains unexhausted claims (grounds 

four and five) and exhausted claims (grounds one, two and three), the Court notifies 

Petitioner of his options. 

Case 3:17-cv-00865-JLS-RBM Document 2 Filed 05/09/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 6
3

17cv0865 JLS (PCL)

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

(i) First Option: Allege Exhaustion

Petitioner may file further papers with this Court to demonstrate that he has in fact 

exhausted the claims the Court has determined are unexhausted. If Petitioner chooses this 

option, his papers are due no later than July 7, 2017. Respondent may file a reply by 

August 7, 2017.

(ii) Second Option: Voluntarily Dismiss the Petition

Petitioner may voluntarily dismiss his entire federal petition and return to state court 

to exhaust any unexhausted claim(s). He may thereafter file a new federal petition in this 

Court containing only exhausted claims. See Rose, 455 U.S. at 520–21 (stating that a 

petitioner who files a mixed petition may dismiss his petition to “return[] to state court to 

exhaust his claims”). If Petitioner chooses this option, he must file a pleading with this 

Court no later than July 7, 2017. Respondent may file a reply by August 7, 2017.

Petitioner is cautioned that any new federal petition must be filed before expiration 

of the one-year statute of limitations. Ordinarily, a petitioner has one year from when his 

conviction became final to file his federal petition, unless he can show that statutory or 

equitable “tolling” applies. Duncan v. Walker, 533 U.S. 167, 176 (2001); 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2244(d).1 The statute of limitations does not run while a properly filed state habeas corpus 

 

1

28 U.S.C. § 2244(d) provides:

(1) A 1-year period of limitation shall apply to an application for a writ of habeas corpus 

by a person in custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court. The limitation period shall 

run from the latest of—

(A) the date on which the judgment became final by the conclusion of direct review 

or the expiration of the time for seeking such review;

(B) the date on which the impediment to filing an application created by State action 

in violation of the Constitution or laws of the United States is removed, if the 

applicant was prevented from filing by such State action;

(C) the date on which the constitutional right asserted was initially recognized by 

the Supreme Court, if the right has been newly recognized by the Supreme Court 

and made retroactively applicable to cases on collateral review; or

(D) the date on which the factual predicate of the claim or claims presented could 

have been discovered through the exercise of due diligence.

Case 3:17-cv-00865-JLS-RBM Document 2 Filed 05/09/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 6
4

17cv0865 JLS (PCL)

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

petition is pending. 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(2); see Nino v. Galaza, 183 F.3d 1003, 1006 (9th 

Cir. 1999). But see Artuz v. Bennett, 531 U.S. 4, 8 (2000) (holding that “an application is 

‘properly filed’ when its delivery and acceptance [by the appropriate court officer for 

placement into the record] are in compliance with the applicable laws and rules governing 

filings”); Bonner v. Carey, 425 F.3d 1145, 1149 (9th Cir. 2005) (holding that a state 

application for post-conviction relief which is ultimately dismissed as untimely was neither 

“properly filed” nor “pending” while it was under consideration by the state court, and 

therefore does not toll the statute of limitations), as amended 439 F.3d 993. However, 

absent some other basis for tolling, the statute of limitations continues to run while a federal 

habeas petition is pending. Duncan, 533 U.S. at 181–82.

(iii) Third Option: Formally Abandon Unexhausted Claim(s)

Petitioner may formally abandon his unexhausted claim(s) and proceed with his 

exhausted one(s). See Rose, 455 U.S. at 510, 520–21 (stating that a petitioner who files a 

mixed petition may “resubmit[] the habeas petition to present only exhausted claims”). If 

Petitioner chooses this option, he must file a pleading with this Court no later than July 7, 

2017. Respondent may file a reply by August 7, 2017.

Petitioner is cautioned that once he abandons his unexhausted claim(s), he may lose 

the ability to ever raise it/them in federal court. See Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 488 

(2000) (stating that a court’s ruling on the merits of claims presented in a first § 2254 

petition renders any later petition successive); see also 28 U.S.C. § 2244 (a)–(b).2

 

(2) The time during which a properly filed application for State post-conviction or other 

collateral review with respect to the pertinent judgment or claim is pending shall not be 

counted toward any period of limitation under this subsection.

2

28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(2) provides that a claim presented in a second or successive habeas corpus 

application under § 2254 shall be dismissed unless: 

(A) the applicant shows that the claim relies on a new rule of constitutional law, made 

retroactive to cases on collateral review by the Supreme Court, that was previously 

unavailable; or 

(B) (i) the factual predicate for the claim could not have been discovered previously 

through the exercise of due diligence; and 

Case 3:17-cv-00865-JLS-RBM Document 2 Filed 05/09/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 6
5

17cv0865 JLS (PCL)

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

(iv) Fourth Option: File a Motion to Stay the Federal Proceedings

Petitioner may, along with a First Amended Petition, file a motion to stay this federal 

proceeding while he returns to state court to exhaust his unexhausted claim(s). There are 

two methods potentially available to Petitioner, the “stay and abeyance” procedure and the 

“withdrawal and abeyance” procedure.

If Petitioner wishes to use the “stay and abeyance” procedure he should ask the Court 

to stay his mixed petition while he returns to state court to exhaust. Under this procedure 

he must demonstrate there are arguably meritorious claim(s) which he wishes to return to 

state court to exhaust, that he is diligently pursuing his state court remedies with respect to 

those claim(s), and that good cause exists for his failure to timely exhaust his state court 

remedies. Rhines v. Webber, 544 U.S. 269, 277–78 (2005). 

If Petitioner wishes to use the “withdrawal and abeyance” procedure, he must 

voluntarily withdraw his unexhausted claim(s), ask the Court to stay the proceedings and 

hold the fully-exhausted petition in abeyance while he returns to state court to exhaust, and 

then seek permission to amend his petition to include the newly exhausted claim(s) after 

exhaustion is complete. King v. Ryan, 564 F.3d. 1133, 1135 (9th Cir. 2009). Although 

under this procedure Petitioner is not required to demonstrate good cause for his failure to 

timely exhaust, the newly exhausted claim(s) must be either timely under the statute of 

limitations or “relate back” to the claim(s) in the fully-exhausted petition, that is, they must 

share a “common core of operative facts” with the previously exhausted claim(s). King, 

564 F.3d at 1141 (quoting Mayle v. Felix, 545 U.S. 644, 659 (2005)).

If Petitioner choses this fourth option, he must file a pleading with this Court no later 

than July 7, 2017. Respondent may file a reply by August 7, 2017.

/ / /

/ / /

 

(ii) the facts underlying the claim, if proven and viewed in light of the evidence as 

a whole, would be sufficient to establish by clear and convincing evidence that, but 

for constitutional error, no reasonable factfinder would have found the applicant 

guilty of the underlying offense. 

Case 3:17-cv-00865-JLS-RBM Document 2 Filed 05/09/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 5 of 6
6

17cv0865 JLS (PCL)

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

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

For the foregoing reasons, the Court DISMISSES this case WITHOUT 

PREJUDICE. If Petitioner wishes to proceed with this case, he must, no later than July 

7, 2017: (1) pay the $5.00 filing fee OR submit adequate proof of his inability to pay the 

fee; AND (2) choose one of the options outlined above. Petitioner is cautioned that if he 

fails to respond to this Order, the Petition will remain dismissed without prejudice.3 See 

Rose, 455 U.S. at 522.

The Clerk of Court shall send a blank Southern District of California In Forma 

Pauperis Application to Petitioner along with a copy of this Order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 9, 2017

 

3 Although the dismissal is “without prejudice,” Petitioner is again cautioned that any later federal petition 

may be barred by the statute of limitations. See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1)–(2); see also footnote two of this 

Order, supra.

Case 3:17-cv-00865-JLS-RBM Document 2 Filed 05/09/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 6 of 6