Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_10-cv-01453/USCOURTS-cand-4_10-cv-01453-0/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

OAKLAND DIVISION

CHARLES WANG,

Petitioner,

 vs.

Probation DAVID PULIDO, et al.,

Respondents. /

No. C 10-1453 PJH (PR)

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

WHY PETITION SHOULD NOT

BE DISMISSED FOR FAILURE

TO EXHAUST

This is a habeas case brought pro se by a state prisoner. Petitioner’s amended

petition is reviewed here. The amended petition is directed to a revocation of probation. 

Petitioner has paid the filing fee. 

An application for a federal writ of habeas corpus filed by a prisoner who is in state

custody pursuant to a judgment of a state court may not be granted unless the prisoner has

first exhausted state judicial remedies, either by way of a direct appeal or in collateral

proceedings, by presenting the highest state court available with a fair opportunity to rule

on the merits of each and every issue he or she seeks to raise in federal court. See 28

U.S.C. § 2254(b),(c); Granberry v. Greer, 481 U.S. 129, 133-34 (1987). Petitioner has the

burden of pleading exhaustion in his habeas petition. See Cartwright v. Cupp, 650 F.2d

1103, 1104 (9th Cir. 1981).

Petitioner alleges that the California Court of Appeal “dismissed” his appeal in 2008,

as did the California Supreme Court in 2009. He says he has not filed any other petitions,

applications or motions in any court with respect to the probation revocation at issue here. 

Despite petitioner’s reference to his appeal having been dismissed, the California Court of

Appeal issued an opinion on the merits. See People v. Wang, No. H033411, 2009 WL

Case 4:10-cv-01453-PJH Document 6 Filed 07/09/10 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

2415755 at *2 (Cal. App. Aug. 7, 2009). In its opinion, the court of appeal mentions only

one issue, sufficiency of the evidence. In his amended petition here, petitioner presents six

issues. Because it appears that only one was raised on direct appeal, and because

petitioner says that he has not filed any other actions directed to this probation revocation,

some or all of the present issues must be unexhausted. At a minimum, he has not

adequately pleaded that they are exhausted. Cartwright, 650 F.2d at 1104. 

Within thirty days of the date this order is entered petitioner shall show cause why

this petition should not be dismissed for failure to exhaust. If he does not, the case will be

dismissed. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 9, 2010. 

 PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON

United States District Judge

P:\PRO-SE\PJH\HC.10\WANG1453.OSC-P.wpd

Case 4:10-cv-01453-PJH Document 6 Filed 07/09/10 Page 2 of 2