Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-03848/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-03848-0/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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

EDWARD G. STINSON,

Petitioner,

v.

BOARD OF PRISON TERMS, et

al.,

 Respondents.

___________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C 06-3848 MMC (PR)

ORDER OF DISMISSAL; ON

PENDING MOTIONS

(Docket Nos. 2, 6, 9, 17, 19, 24 & 28)

On June 20, 2006, petitioner, a California prisoner proceeding pro se, filed the abovetitled petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. On July 25, 2006, he

filed an amended petition. 

In his petition, petitioner states that in February 2006, the California Board of Prison

Terms revoked his parole. He states that he filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the

Alameda County Superior Court and the California Court of Appeal, both of which were

denied. He further states that he subsequently filed a petition for review in the California

Supreme Court, but the result of that decision is “unknown.” (See Amended Pet. at 7; see

also id. at 3.) Finally, petitioner states that at the time he filed the instant federal habeas

petition, he had a petition, appeal or other post-conviction proceeding pending in the

California Supreme Court. (See id. at 7.) 

The exhaustion requirement applicable to federal habeas petitions is not satisfied if

there is a pending post-conviction proceeding in state court. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)-(c);

Sherwood v. Tomkins, 716 F.2d 632, 634 (9th Cir. 1983). If a post-conviction challenge to a

Case 3:06-cv-03848-MMC Document 30 Filed 12/11/06 Page 1 of 2
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

criminal conviction is pending in state court, a potential federal habeas petitioner must await

the outcome of that challenge before his state remedies are considered exhausted. See id.

This rule applies irrespective of whether the issue raised in the pending state petition is

included in the federal petition, for the reason that a pending state court challenge may result

in a reversal of the petitioner's conviction, thereby mooting the federal petition. See id.

(citations omitted).

As petitioner has a petition, appeal or other post-conviction proceeding pending in the

California Supreme Court, the instant petition for a writ of habeas corpus is hereby

DISMISSED, without prejudice to petitioner’s refiling his claims after all state court postconviction challenges to petitioner’s conviction have been completed and all claims

petitioner wishes to raise in federal court have been exhausted in accordance with

28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)-(c). See Rose v. Lundy, 455 U.S. 509, 522 (1982) (holding every claim

raised in federal habeas petition must be exhausted).

In light of this dismissal, petitioner’s motions for default judgment, “Motion to Vacate

Violation Term Due to State and Federal Constitutional Violations,” and “Motion for

Safeguard of Constitutional Rights” are hereby DENIED. 

In light of petitioner’s lack of funds, the application to proceed in forma pauperis is

GRANTED.

This order terminates Docket Nos. 2, 6, 9, 17, 19, 24 and 28, and any other pending

motions. 

The Clerk shall close the file. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: December 11, 2006

____________________________

MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge 

Case 3:06-cv-03848-MMC Document 30 Filed 12/11/06 Page 2 of 2