Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_15-cv-02793/USCOURTS-casd-3_15-cv-02793-0/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

15cv2793 BTM (RBB) 

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 

MARC EXTER JERNIGAN, 

Petitioner,

v.

MERRIEN EDWARD, Warden, 

Respondent.

 Case No. 15cv2793 BTM (RBB) 

NOTICE REGARDING POSSIBLE 

FAILURE TO EXHAUST AND ONEYEAR STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS 

Petitioner, a state prisoner, has filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant 

to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. This Notice Provides Important Information Relating to 

Petitions and Is Issued in Every Case Regardless of Whether the Petitioner Alleges 

Full Exhaustion of State Judicial Remedies.

REQUIREMENT THAT PETITIONER EXHAUST 

STATE JUDICIAL REMEDIES

 Generally, applications for writs of habeas corpus that contain unexhausted claims 

must be dismissed. See Rose v. Lundy, 455 U.S. 509, 522 (1982). However, federal 

courts have the discretion to deny a habeas application on the merits notwithstanding a 

petitioner’s failure to fully exhaust state judicial remedies. See 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254(b)(2) 

(West 2006); Liegakos v. Cooke, 106 F.3d 1381, 1388 (7th Cir. 1997). To exhaust state 

judicial remedies, a California state prisoner must present the California Supreme Court 

Case 3:15-cv-02793-BTM-RBB Document 3 Filed 12/23/15 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 4
2

15cv2793 BTM (RBB) 

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

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 v. Greer, 481 U.S. 129, 133-34 

(1987). The petitioner must have raised the very same federal claims brought in the 

federal petition before the state supreme court. See Duncan v. Henry, 513 U.S. 364, 365-

66 (1995). For example, “[i]f a habeas petitioner wishes to claim that an evidentiary 

ruling at a state court trial denied him the due process of law guaranteed by the 

Fourteenth Amendment, he must say so, not only in federal court, but in state court.” Id. 

at 366. 

ONE-YEAR STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS

 Further, the Court cautions Petitioner that a one-year period of limitation applies to 

a petition for a writ of habeas corpus by a person in custody pursuant to the judgment of a 

State court. The limitation period begins to run on 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. 

28 U.S.C.A. § 2244(d)(1)(A)-(D) (West 2006). If the federal petition is filed after the 

statute of limitations has run, the petition will be summarily dismissed. 

 The statute of limitations does not run while a properly filed state habeas corpus 

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

Case 3:15-cv-02793-BTM-RBB Document 3 Filed 12/23/15 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 4
3

15cv2793 BTM (RBB) 

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

(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.”). However, the filing of a federal habeas petition does not toll 

the statute of limitations. Duncan v. Walker, 533 U.S. 167, 181-82 (2001). 

CONCLUSION

 This Court has not yet determined whether or not all of Petitioner’s claims have 

been exhausted. That determination will take place later in the proceedings. However, 

Petitioner should consider that if state court remedies have not been exhausted, “the clock 

may be ticking” on his one-year statute of limitations, and/or that the one-year period 

may have already expired. If a petitioner waits until this Court determines whether all 

claims contained in a petition have been exhausted, it may be too late to exhaust.

Therefore, if a petitioner knows that one or more claims have not been exhausted, the 

petitioner should consider the options with respect to exhausting those claims. Those 

options include: 

(1) filing a request for voluntary dismissal of unexhausted claims and 

proceeding in the current federal action with only the exhausted claims (If 

Petitioner chooses this option, his abandoned unexhausted claims may be 

forever barred from federal court habeas review.); or 

(2) filing a request for dismissal without prejudice of the current 

federal action and going to state court to exhaust all unexhausted claims 

(Petitioner should consider whether all of his federal claims will be barred 

by the one-year statute of limitations before choosing this option.). 

 This Notice is not providing legal advice. It merely lists two of the options that 

may be available to petitioners who file unexhausted claims in federal court. The 

decision on how to proceed is solely and exclusively up to Petitioner. 

//

//

Case 3:15-cv-02793-BTM-RBB Document 3 Filed 12/23/15 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 4
4

15cv2793 BTM (RBB) 

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

If Petitioner Is Certain His Federal Petition Contains Only Exhausted Claims, 

He Need Not Take Any Further Action.

PETITIONER IS SO NOTIFIED. 

Dated: December 18, 2015 

 Hon. Ruben B. Brooks 

 United States Magistrate Judge 

Case 3:15-cv-02793-BTM-RBB Document 3 Filed 12/23/15 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 4