Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-01644/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-01644-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 28:2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus

---

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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Petitioner proceeds in pro se and in forma pauperis with a petition for writ of habeas 

corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Petitioner is awaiting trial and is detailed by the Department 

of State Hospitals. He challenges the constitutionality of California’s Sexually Violent Predator 

Act (“SVPA” Cal. Welf. & Inst. Code § 6600 et seq.). This case was transferred to this District 

from Northern District. 

I. SCREENING STANDARD 

Under 28 U.S.C § 1915(e)(2), the Court must screen all complaints brought in forma 

pauperis or by prisoners. Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1129 (9th Cir. 2000). Rule 4 of the 

Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases allows a district court to dismiss a petition 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 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases.

II. EXHAUSTION REQUIREMENT

JOHN CLINE,

Petitioner,

v.

JERRY BROWN,

Respondent.

CASE NO. 1:15-CV-1644-SMS (HC)

ORDER DISMISSING PETITION WITH

LEAVE TO AMEND

 

Doc. 1

Case 1:15-cv-01644-LJO-SMS Document 13 Filed 03/14/16 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

Exhaustion of state remedies is a prerequisite to federal court consideration of claims in a 

habeas corpus petition. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(1)(A). Although there is no exhaustion requirement 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c)(3), exhaustion is still necessary as a matter of comity unless 

special circumstances warrant federal intervention prior to a state criminal trial. See Carden v. 

Montana, 626 F.2d 82, 83-84 (9th Cir. 1980); Braden v. 30th Judicial Circuit Court of Kentucky, 

410 U.S. 484, 489-91 (1973). The exhaustion doctrine gives the state court the initial opportunity 

to correct the state’s constitutional deprivations. Coleman v. Thompson, 501 U.S. 722, 731 

(1991); Rose v. Lundy, 455 U.S. 509, 518 (1982); Buffalo v. Sunn, 854 F.2d 1158, 1163 (9th Cir. 

1988). “The rule of exhaustion in federal habeas corpus actions is rooted in considerations of 

federal-state comity” and the “comity considerations are not limited to challenges to the validity of 

state court convictions.” Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 491 (1973). The Ninth Circuit has 

required habeas petitioners to exhaust available judicial remedies before seeking relief under § 

2241. See Acevedo-Carranza v. Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 539, 541 (9th Cir. 2004)(immigration 

detainee). 

Here, Petitioner has not alleged that he has exhausted state remedies. On his fill-in-theblank form petition, he did not respond to the question regarding whether he appealed the 

judgment of commitment. He left the space for information for each appeal blank. In response to 

the question regarding filing previous petitions or motions with respect to this commitment, 

Petitioner stated that he has filed pre-trial motions in Contra Costa Superior Court raising 

“unknown” grounds, which were denied. Thus, it appears that Petitioner has not given the state 

court the initial opportunity to correct its alleged constitutional deprivations. Petitioner must seek 

review in the state court prior to federal court review. The petition will be dismissed with leave to 

amend to allege facts demonstrating that he has exhausted his state remedies or that no state 

remedy remains available. 

III. ORDER

For the foregoing reasons, it is hereby ORDERED that the petition be DISMISSED WITH 

LEAVE TO AMEND as discussed in this order. Petitioner shall file a first amended petition 

alleging facts demonstrating exhaustion of state remedies within thirty (30) days of entry of this 

Case 1:15-cv-01644-LJO-SMS Document 13 Filed 03/14/16 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

order. Petitioner is not required to file a first amended petition. However, failure to do so will 

result in dismissal of this action. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 11, 2016 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:15-cv-01644-LJO-SMS Document 13 Filed 03/14/16 Page 3 of 3