Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_24-cv-00393/USCOURTS-caed-1_24-cv-00393-0/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

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RUSTY LEE SALDIVAR,

Petitioner,

v.

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, 

FRESNO COUNTY,

Respondent.

Case No. 1:24-cv-00393-SAB-HC

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY 

PETITION SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED 

FOR FAILURE TO EXHAUST STATE 

COURT REMEDIES

Petitioner is a pretrial detainee proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas corpus

challenging the superior court’s bail determination and Petitioner’s continued pretrial detention.

Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases1requires preliminary review of a 

habeas petition and allows a district court to dismiss a petition before the respondent is ordered 

to file a response, if it “plainly appears from the petition and any attached exhibits that the 

petitioner is not entitled to relief in the district court.” Rule 4, Rules Governing Section 2254

Cases in the United States District Courts, 28 U.S.C. foll. § 2254.

Habeas petitions are subject to an exhaustion requirement—either a judicially-created 

prudential one under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, Dominguez v. Kernan, 906 F.3d 1127, 1135 n.9 (9th Cir. 

1 The Court may apply any or all of these rules to habeas corpus petitions that are not brought under 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2254. Rule 1(b), Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts, 28 U.S.C. foll. § 2254.

Case 1:24-cv-00393-KES-SAB Document 4 Filed 04/10/24 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

2

2018), or a statutory one under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b). The exhaustion doctrine is based on comity 

to the state court and gives the state court the initial opportunity to correct the state’s alleged 

constitutional deprivations. Coleman v. Thompson, 501 U.S. 722, 731 (1991); Rose v. Lundy, 

455 U.S. 509, 518 (1982). A petitioner in state custody can satisfy the exhaustion requirement by 

providing the highest state court with a full and fair opportunity to consider each claim before 

presenting it to the federal court. O’Sullivan v. Boerckel, 526 U.S. 838, 845 (1999); Duncan v. 

Henry, 513 U.S. 364, 365 (1995); Picard v. Connor, 404 U.S. 270, 276 (1971). “Where a 

petitioner seeks pre-conviction habeas relief, this exhaustion prerequisite serves two purposes: 

(1) to avoid isolating state courts from federal constitutional issues by assuring those courts an 

ample opportunity to consider constitutional claims; and (2) to prevent federal interference with 

state adjudication, especially state criminal trials.” Carden v. Montana, 626 F.2d 82, 83 (9th Cir. 

1980). 

If Petitioner has not sought relief in the California Supreme Court, the Court cannot 

proceed to the merits of his claims. Petitioner states that he “feel[s] a state direct appeal is 

i[m]practicable,” which implies his claims have not been raised in the California Supreme Court. 

(ECF No. 1 at 7.2) It is possible, however, that Petitioner also presented his claims to the 

California Supreme Court and failed to indicate this to the Court. Thus, Petitioner must inform 

the Court whether each of his claims has been presented to the California Supreme Court, and if 

possible, provide the Court with a copy of the petition filed in the California Supreme Court that 

includes the claims now presented and a file stamp showing that the petition was indeed filed in 

the California Supreme Court. 

Accordingly, Petitioner is hereby ORDERED to SHOW CAUSE within THIRTY (30) 

days from the date of service of this order why the petition should not be dismissed for failure to 

exhaust state remedies.

///

///

2 Page numbers refer to the ECF page numbers stamped at the top of the page.

Case 1:24-cv-00393-KES-SAB Document 4 Filed 04/10/24 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

3

Petitioner is forewarned that failure to follow this order may result in a recommendation 

for dismissal of the petition pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) (a petitioner’s 

failure to prosecute or to comply with a court order may result in a dismissal of the action).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 10, 2024 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:24-cv-00393-KES-SAB Document 4 Filed 04/10/24 Page 3 of 3