Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_15-cv-01137/USCOURTS-cand-4_15-cv-01137-0/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

WARREN JOSEPH KING,

Petitioner,

 v.

J. SOTO,

Respondent. _________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

) 

No. C 15-1137 JSW (PR)

ORDER OF DISMISSAL;

GRANTING LEAVE TO

PROCEED IN FORMA

PAUPERIS

(Docket No. 7)

INTRODUCTION

Petitioner, a prisoner of the State of California, has filed a habeas corpus petition

challenging the constitutionality of his conviction in the state courts. Because it is clear

that he has not exhausted his claims to the California Supreme Court, dismisses the

petition without prejudice to filing a new federal petition once all claims have been

exhausted. This order also grants Petitioner’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis

(docket number 2).

DISCUSSION

I Standard of Review

This court may entertain a petition for a 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). 

Case 4:15-cv-01137-JSW Document 8 Filed 06/01/15 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

It 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.” Id. § 2243. 

II Legal Claims

An application for a federal writ of habeas corpus filed by a prisoner who is in

state custody pursuant to a judgment of a state court, such as petitioner, may not be

granted unless the prisoner has first exhausted state judicial remedies, either by way of a

direct appeal or in collateral proceedings, by presenting the highest state court available

with a fair opportunity to rule on the merits of each and every issue he or she seeks to

raise in federal court. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b),(c); Granberry v. Greer, 481 U.S. 129,

133-34 (1987). 

In California, the supreme court, intermediate courts of appeal, and superior

courts all have original habeas corpus jurisdiction. See Nino v. Galaza, 183 F.3d 1003,

1006 n.2 (9th Cir. 1999). Although a superior court order denying habeas corpus relief is

non-appealable, a state prisoner may file a new habeas corpus petition in the court of

appeals. See id. If the court of appeals denies relief, the petitioner may seek review in

the California Supreme Court by way of a petition for review, or may instead file an

original habeas petition in the supreme court. See id. at n.3.

Petitioner has the burden of pleading exhaustion in his habeas petition. See

Cartwright v. Cupp, 650 F.2d 1103, 1104 (9th Cir. 1981). Petitioner indicates that he

never presented the claims raised herein to the California Supreme Court. According to

the petition, the California Supreme Court denied his petition for review on direct appeal,

but that petition did not include the claims raised in the instant federal petition. (Dkt.

No. 6 at 3.) The petition indicates no other post-conviction or collateral petitions filed in

the California Supreme Court; the only habeas petition he filed in state courts was a

petition in the Contra Costa County Superior Court. (Id.) To properly exhaust his

claims, Petitioner must properly present them to the California Supreme Court. 

Petitioner has not presented any exceptional circumstances to excuse his failure to

Case 4:15-cv-01137-JSW Document 8 Filed 06/01/15 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

exhaust. See Granberry, 481 U.S. at 134. The petition will therefore be dismissed

without prejudice to refiling after available state judicial remedies are exhausted.

CONCLUSION 

For the foregoing reasons and for good cause shown the petition for a writ of

habeas corpus is DISMISSED without prejudice. 

Rule 11(a) of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases now requires a district

court to rule on whether a Petitioner is entitled to a certificate of appealability in the

same order in which the petition is decided. Petitioner has failed to make a substantial

showing that his claims amounted to a denial of his constitutional rights or demonstrate

that a reasonable jurist would find this Court's denial of his claim debatable or wrong. 

Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). Consequently, no certificate of

appealability is warranted in this case

In light of Petitioner’s lack of funds, his application for leave to proceed in forma

pauperis is GRANTED (docket number 7). 

The Clerk shall enter judgment and close the file.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: June 1, 2015 JEFFREY S. WHITE

United States District Judge

Case 4:15-cv-01137-JSW Document 8 Filed 06/01/15 Page 3 of 3