Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_06-cv-03354/USCOURTS-cand-5_06-cv-03354-1/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

Order of Dismissal

P:\pro-se\sj.jf\hc.06\Mendez354dis 1

NOT FOR CITATION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ARTHUR E. MENDEZ, 

Petitioner,

 vs.

JEANNE WOODFORD,

Respondent. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C 06-3354 JF (PR)

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed a petition for a writ of habeas

corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Petitioner alleges in the instant petition that he has

a pending proceeding in the Santa Clara Superior Court. See Petition at 5. On June 7,

2006, the Court ordered Petitioner to Show Cause as to why the petition should not be

dismissed without prejudice to refiling once he exhausts his pending state court action. 

The Court directed Petitioner to file a response within thirty days addressing: (1) whether

he has a habeas petition, appeal, or other post-conviction proceeding now pending before

the state court; and (2) whether the instant petition challenges the same conviction at issue

in his pending state case. The Court notified Petitioner that his failure to file a timely

response would result in the Court dismissing the instant petition without prejudice for

failure to exhaust state court remedies.

**Original filed 8/31/06**

Case 5:06-cv-03354-JF Document 4 Filed 08/31/06 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

Order of Dismissal

P:\pro-se\sj.jf\hc.06\Mendez354dis 2

Prisoners in state custody who wish to challenge collaterally in federal habeas

corpus proceedings either the fact or length of their confinement are first required to

exhaust state judicial remedies, either on direct appeal or through collateral proceedings,

by presenting the highest state court available with a fair opportunity to rule on the merits

of each and every claim they seek to raise in federal court. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)-(c); see

also O’Sullivan v Boerckel, 119 S.Ct 1728, 1730 (1999) (state’s highest court must be

given opportunity to rule on claims even if review is discretionary); Larche v Simons, 53

F.3d 1068, 1071-72 (9th Cir. 1995) (Supreme Court of California must be given at least

one opportunity to review state prisoners’ federal claims). The exhaustion requirement

applicable to federal habeas petitions is not satisfied if there is a pending post-conviction

proceeding in state court. See Sherwood v. Tomkins, 716 F.2d 632, 634 (9th Cir. 1983). 

If, for example, an appeal of a state criminal conviction is pending, a would-be federal

habeas petitioner must await the outcome of his appeal before his state remedies are

exhausted, even where the issue raised in the petition has been finally settled in the state

courts. Id. 

As of the date of this order, Petitioner has not filed a response to the Court’s June

7, 2006 Order to Show Cause. Accordingly, the instant petition is DISMISSED without

prejudice for failure to exhaust state court remedies as there is a pending proceeding in

the Santa Clara Superior Court. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: _______________ 

JEREMY FOGEL

United States District Judge

8/31/06 /S/

Case 5:06-cv-03354-JF Document 4 Filed 08/31/06 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

Order of Dismissal

P:\pro-se\sj.jf\hc.06\Mendez354dis 3

This is to certify that a copy of this ruling was mailed to the following:

Arthur E. Mendez

T-21071

CSP -Los Angeles County 

44750 60th Street West

Lancaster, CA 93536

Case 5:06-cv-03354-JF Document 4 Filed 08/31/06 Page 3 of 3