Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_15-cv-04550/USCOURTS-cand-5_15-cv-04550-0/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

---

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

Order of Dismissal

P:\PRO-SE\RMW\HC.15\Henry550disexh.wpd

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SHEDRICK L. HENRY,

Petitioner,

 v.

SUZANNE M. PERRY, Warden,

Respondent.

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C 15-4550 RMW (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, challenging his criminal judgment. On January 12, 2016, the court

directed petitioner to show cause why the petition should not be dismissed without prejudice

because petitioner had not exhausted his state court remedies. Petitioner filed a response in which

he concedes that he has not raised any claims in the California Supreme Court due to his lack of

legal knowledge. 

As the court previously advised petitioner, prisoners in state custody who wish to

collaterally challenge either the fact or length of their confinement in federal habeas corpus

proceedings 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 the prisoners seek to raise in federal court. 28 U.S.C.

Case 5:15-cv-04550-RMW Document 10 Filed 02/09/16 Page 1 of 3
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

Order of Dismissal

P:\PRO-SE\RMW\HC.15\Henry550disexh.wpd 2

§ 2254(b)-(c). The exhaustion-of-state-remedies doctrine reflects a policy of federal-state comity

to give the state “the initial ‘opportunity to pass upon and correct alleged violations of its

prisoners’ federal rights.’” Picard v. Connor, 404 U.S. 270, 275 (1971) (citations omitted). The

exhaustion requirement is satisfied only if the federal claim has been “fairly presented” to the state

courts. See id.; Peterson v. Lampert, 319 F.3d 1153, 1155-56 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc). The

state's highest court must be given an opportunity to rule on the claims even if review is

discretionary. See O’Sullivan v. Boerckel, 526 U.S. 838, 845 (1999) (petitioner must invoke “one

complete round of the State’s established appellate review process.”). A federal district court must

dismiss a federal habeas petition containing any claim as to which state remedies have not been

exhausted. See Rhines v. Weber, 544 U.S. 269, 273 (2005).

Petitioner requests that the court stay and hold his petition in abeyance while petitioner

returns to exhaust his claims in state court. While the United States Supreme Court has held that a

district court may stay mixed habeas petitions to allow the petitioner to exhaust in state court, see

Rhines, 544 U.S. at 277-78, a district court does not have discretion to stay a petition containing

only unexhausted claims, see Rasberry v. Garcia, 448 F.3d 1150, 1154 (9th Cir. 2006). Cf. James

v. Pliler, 269 F.3d 1124, 1126-27 (citing Calderon v. United States District Court (Taylor), 134

F.3d 981, 988 (9th Cir. 1998)) (“In Taylor, we held that a district court may, in its discretion, allow

a petitioner to amend a mixed petition by deleting the unexhausted claims, hold the exhausted

claims in abeyance until the unexhausted claims are exhausted, and then allow the petitioner to

amend the stayed petition to add the now exhausted claims.”). Here, petitioner conceded that he

had not presented any of his claims to the California Supreme Court and thus, his petition is

wholly unexhausted. The court cannot hold a fully unexhausted petition in abeyance.

Because it is clear that petitioner has not fairly presented his claims in the underlying

federal habeas corpus petition to the highest state court, the court DISMISSES the petition without

prejudice for failure to exhaust. 

The federal rules governing habeas cases brought by state prisoners require a district court

that denies a habeas petition to grant or deny a certificate of appealability (“COA”) in its ruling. 

See Rule 11(a), Rules Governing § 2254 Cases, 28 U.S.C. foll. § 2254. Petitioner has not shown

Case 5:15-cv-04550-RMW Document 10 Filed 02/09/16 Page 2 of 3
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

Order of Dismissal

P:\PRO-SE\RMW\HC.15\Henry550disexh.wpd 3

“that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the district court was correct in its

procedural ruling.” Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). Accordingly, a COA is

DENIED. 

The Clerk shall terminate all pending motions and close the file.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: RONALD M. WHYTE 

United States District Judge

2/9/2016

Case 5:15-cv-04550-RMW Document 10 Filed 02/09/16 Page 3 of 3