Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_06-cv-00106/USCOURTS-cand-5_06-cv-00106-1/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 Granting Petitioner’s Motion to Proceed in Forma Pauperis; Order of Dismissal with Leave to Amend

P:\pro-se\sj.rmw\hc.06\Russellifpdwlta 1

NOT FOR CITATION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

HERBERT RUSSELL, JR.,

Petitioner,

 vs.

SUPERIOR COURT, SAN JOSE,

Respondent. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C 06-0106 JF (PR)

ORDER GRANTING

PETITIONER’S MOTION TO

PROCEED IN FORMA

PAUPERIS; ORDER OF

DISMISSAL WITH LEAVE

TO AMEND

(Docket No. 6)

Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed the instant habeas corpus

petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The Court initially denied Petitioner’s incomplete

application to proceed in forma pauperis without prejudice and extended the time for

Petitioner to submit a completed application or pay the $5.00 filing fee. On September

13, 2006, Petitioner filed a completed in forma pauperis application. The Court will

DISMISS the petition with leave to amend and GRANT Petitioner’s motion to proceed in

forma pauperis (docket no. 6). 

\\\ 

\\\

\\\

DISCUSSION

**Original filed 1/11/07**

Case 5:06-cv-00106-JF Document 9 Filed 01/11/07 Page 1 of 4
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 Granting Petitioner’s Motion to Proceed in Forma Pauperis; Order of Dismissal with Leave to Amend

P:\pro-se\sj.rmw\hc.06\Russellifpdwlta 2

A. Standard of Review

A district court may entertain a petition for writ of habeas corpus “in behalf of a 

person in custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court only on the ground that he is

in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.” 28

U.S.C. § 2254(a); Rose v. Hodges, 423 U.S. 19, 21 (1975). 

A district court shall “award the writ or issue an order directing the respondent to

show cause why the writ should not be granted, unless it appears from the application that

the applicant or person detained is not entitled thereto.” 28 U.S.C. § 2243. Summary

dismissal is appropriate only where the allegations in the petition are vague or conclusory,

palpably incredible, or patently frivolous or false. See Hendricks v. Vasquez, 908 F.2d

490, 491 (9th Cir. 1990) (quoting Blackledge v. Allison, 431 U.S. 63, 75-76 (1977)). 

B. Petitioner’s Claims

It appears from the petition that Petitioner challenges his 2002 assault with intent

to commit rape conviction in Santa Clara Superior Court. In his grounds for relief,

Petitioner makes several allegations that the D.A. and the Judge, with help from the

Public Defenders office, “cooked” up an illegal charge against him and that he is

innocent. See Petition at 3. Petitioner also maintains that he was mentally ill at the time

of his arrest. Id. at 4. The petition states that the only issue raised on appeal was a

double jeopardy claim. Id. at 5. 

Based on the information in the instant petition, the Court cannot determine

whether Petitioner has exhausted his claims in the California courts before filing this

habeas action. Federal habeas petitioners 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); Rose v. Lundy, 455

U.S. 509, 515-16 (1982); Duckworth v. Serrano, 454 U.S. 1, 3 (1981); McNeeley v.

Arave, 842 F.2d 230, 231 (9th Cir. 1988). The state’s highest court must be given an

opportunity to rule on the claims even if review is discretionary. See O’Sullivan v.

Case 5:06-cv-00106-JF Document 9 Filed 01/11/07 Page 2 of 4
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 Granting Petitioner’s Motion to Proceed in Forma Pauperis; Order of Dismissal with Leave to Amend

P:\pro-se\sj.rmw\hc.06\Russellifpdwlta 3

Boerckel, 526 U.S. 838, 845 (1999) (petitioner must invoke “one complete round of the

State’s established appellate review process”). Therefore, Petitioner cannot present

claims to this Court which he has not first raised in the highest state court available, the

Supreme Court of California, usually by direct appeal or by way of a state habeas

petition.

The Court cannot fairly evaluate the petition in its present state. Accordingly, the

Court will allow Petitioner an opportunity to file an amended petition on the Court’s

habeas form to correct these deficiencies. 

CONCLUSION 

1. Petitioner’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis (docket no. 6) is 

GRANTED. 

2. The instant petition is DISMISSED with leave to amend within thirty (30) 

days from the date of this order. The amended petition must include the caption and civil

case number used in this order (C 06-106 JF (PR)) and the words AMENDED PETITION

on the first page. The amended petition shall be on the Court’s form for habeas petitions,

a copy of which is enclosed with Petitioner’s copy of this order. 

Petitioner shall take care to write clearly and legibly, so that the Court can read

what he writes. He must clearly state the grounds for relief challenging his 2002 Santa

Clara County conviction. He must set out how he has exhausted his claims, that is, what

he did to present them first to the highest state court available, which is the Supreme

Court of California. 

3. It is Petitioner’s responsibility to prosecute this case. Petitioner must keep 

the Court informed of any change of address and must comply with the Court’s orders in

a timely fashion. Failure to do so may result in the dismissal of this action for failure to

prosecute pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: _______________ JEREMY FOGEL 

United States District Judge

1/11/07

Case 5:06-cv-00106-JF Document 9 Filed 01/11/07 Page 3 of 4
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 Granting Petitioner’s Motion to Proceed in Forma Pauperis; Order of Dismissal with Leave to Amend

P:\pro-se\sj.rmw\hc.06\Russellifpdwlta 4

A copy of this ruling was mailed to the following:

Herbert Russell, Jr.

T-72288/ D-3 108 low

Salinas Valley State Prison

P.O. Box 1060

Soledad, CA 93960-1060 

Case 5:06-cv-00106-JF Document 9 Filed 01/11/07 Page 4 of 4