Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_10-cv-00059/USCOURTS-cand-3_10-cv-00059-0/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

ZAMEER RIAZ AZAM, 

Petitioner,

v.

M. S. EVANS, warden, 

Respondent. /

No. C 10-059 MHP (pr)

ORDER OF DISMISSAL 

Zameer Riaz Azam, an inmate incarcerated at Folsom State Prison, has filed this pro

se action seeking a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. His petition

challenges his conviction in the Alameda County Superior Court for kidnapping, infliction of

corporal injury on his child's mother, making criminal threats, and misdemeanor contempt of

court. At the time he filed this petition, he had a habeas corpus petition pending in the

California Supreme Court. See Petition, p. 6. The docket sheet on the website for the

California courts shows that the petition in In re. Azam (Zameer Riaz) on H.C., Cal. S. Ct.

No. S179010, was filed on December 23, 2009, and is still pending. 

Prisoners in state custody who want to challenge either the fact or length of their

confinement in federal court by a petition for a 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. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(1)(A),(c);

Duckworth v. Serrano, 454 U.S. 1, 3 (1981). The exhaustion requirement is not satisfied if

Case 3:10-cv-00059-MHP Document 5 Filed 04/23/10 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

2

there is a pending post-conviction proceeding in state court. See Sherwood v. Tomkins, 716

F.2d 632, 634 (9th Cir. 1983). If an appeal or collateral challenge of a state criminal

conviction is pending, a would-be federal habeas petitioner must await the outcome of the

state court action before his state remedies are considered exhausted, even where the issue to

be raised in the federal petition has been finally settled in the state courts. See id. Even if

the federal constitutional question raised by the petitioner cannot be resolved in a pending

state action, that action may result in the reversal of the petitioner's conviction on some other

ground, thereby mooting the federal question. See id. (citations omitted); cf. Phillips v.

Vasquez, 56 F.3d 1030, 1036 (9th Cir. 1995) (allowing death penalty defendant's habeas

challenge to guilt determination even though state court challenge to his sentence of death

was still pending; extraordinary delay in adjudicating the latter excused exhaustion

requirement and, unlike Sherwood, there was no danger that the pending state appeal would

moot the federal court's decision).

Azam has a collateral challenge to his conviction pending in state court. Until that

proceeding finishes, a habeas petition in this court is premature. This action therefore is

DISMISSED without prejudice to him filing a new federal action after the California

Supreme Court rule on his pending petition.

After Azam concludes his collateral challenge and exhausts his state court remedies,

he may file a new federal petition for writ of habeas corpus. He is cautioned not to file an

amended petition in this action and not to use the case number for this action because this

action is being closed today. When he files a new petition, he should put no case number on

the first page, and should submit it with the $5.00 filing fee or a completed in forma pauperis

application. At that time, the court will give the new petition a new case number. 

The clerk shall close the file. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: April 22, 2010 

Marilyn Hall Patel

United States District Judge

Case 3:10-cv-00059-MHP Document 5 Filed 04/23/10 Page 2 of 2