Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-01474/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-01474-3/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 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

ALBERT MOUSA, 

Petitioner, 

v. 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF 

CALIFORNIA, et al., 

Respondents. 

No. 2:14-cv-1474 WBS AC P 

ORDER 

 Petitioner has filed a “Notice of Motion to Voluntarily Dismiss Without Prejudice” this 

habeas corpus action filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, so that petitioner may “exhaust his 

administrative remedies.” ECF No. 26. Review of the operative Second Amended Petition, ECF 

No. 14, and respondent’s pending motion to dismiss, ECF No. 23, indicates that petitioner 

appears to be referencing the exhaustion of administrative remedies needed to pursue some of the 

procedural challenges to his 2012 parole hearing. See e.g. ECF No. 23-3 at 12-5 (Sept. 25, 2013 

Orange County Superior Court decision) (citing In re Dexter, 25 Cal. 3d 921 (1979) (relied upon 

by California courts to indicate that a claim has not been reached on the merits because petitioner 

failed to exhaust his administrative remedies). Respondent moves to dismiss this action on the 

grounds that the claims are untimely, unexhausted and/or procedurally defaulted, and are not 

cognizable on federal habeas corpus. ECF No. 23 at 1. 

Case 2:14-cv-01474-WBS-AC Document 27 Filed 03/25/15 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

 Petitioner is informed that, in cases filed under Section 2254, “exhaustion” generally 

refers to the exhaustion of available state remedies prior to commencing a federal action. See 28 

U.S.C. § 2254(b); see also Rose v. Lundy, 455 U.S. 509 (1982). A petitioner satisfies the 

exhaustion requirement by providing the state’s highest court with a full and fair opportunity to 

consider all the claims before presenting them to the federal court. Picard v. Connor, 404 U.S. 

270, 276 (1971), Middleton v. Cupp, 768 F.2d 1083, 1086 (9th Cir. 1985), cert. denied, 478 U.S. 

1021 (1986). The attachments to the motion to dismiss indicate that petitioner has pursued some 

of his claims through the state courts which, if they were considered on the merits, may render the 

claims cognizable in this court. Petitioner must make the assessment whether any of his claims 

were assessed on the merits and thereby exhausted in the state courts, or whether the state courts 

failed to reach the substance of plaintiff’s claims due to some procedural impediment, e.g., failure 

to exhaust administrative remedies. Due to petitioner’s possible confusion concerning the 

requirement that he exhaust his claims before coming to this court, he will be given an 

opportunity to reassess his request before obtaining dismissal of this action. 

 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 

 1. Petitioner shall, within 21 days after the filing date of this order, file and serve one of 

the following: 

 a. A statement confirming petitioner’s request for voluntary dismissal of this action; OR 

 b. An opposition to respondent’s motion to dismiss filed January 16, 2015. 

 2. Failure to timely respond to this order will be construed as confirmation of petitioner’s 

request to voluntarily dismiss this action without prejudice. 

DATED; March 24, 2015 

Case 2:14-cv-01474-WBS-AC Document 27 Filed 03/25/15 Page 2 of 2