Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_08-cv-00972/USCOURTS-casd-3_08-cv-00972-0/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

1

28 U.S.C. § 2254 (b)(1)-(2) states:

(b) (1) An application for a writ of habeas corpus on behalf of a person in custody

pursuant to the judgment of a State court shall not be granted unless it appears that -

K:\COMMO N\BURNS\_CASES DJ\CIVIL\_ATTENTION - SIGNED ORD ERS\08cv0972 Dismissal.wpd, 6108 -1-

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

KEVIN ORLANDO GUNN, Civil No. 08- 0972 LAB (WMc)

Petitioner,

ORDER DISMISSING CASE 

v. WITHOUT PREJUDICE

J. F. SALAZAR, Warden

Respondent.

Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 

FAILURE TO SATISFY FILING FEE REQUIREMENT

Petitioner has failed to pay the $5.00 filing fee and has failed to move to proceed in forma

pauperis. This Court cannot proceed until Petitioner has either paid the $5.00 filing fee or qualified to

proceed in forma pauperis. See Rule 3(a), 28 U.S.C. foll. § 2254. 

FAILURE TO ALLEGE EXHAUSTION AS TO STATE COURT REMEDIES

Petitioner has not alleged exhaustion as to claim six. (See Pet. at 6.) The exhaustion requirement

is satisfied by providing the state courts with a “fair opportunity” to rule on Petitioner’s constitutional

claims. Anderson v. Harless, 459 U.S. 4, 6 (1982). In most instances, a claim is exhausted once it is

presented to a state’s highest court, either on direct appeal or through state collateral proceedings.1 See

Case 3:08-cv-00972-LAB-WMC Document 3 Filed 06/10/08 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

(A) the applicant has exhausted the remedies available in the courts of the State; or

(B)(i) there is an absence of available State corrective process; or (ii) circumstances exist

that render such process ineffective to protect the rights of the applicant.

 (2) An application for a writ of habeas corpus may be denied on the merits, notwithstanding

the failure of the applicant to exhaust the remedies available in the courts of the State.

2

28 U.S.C. § 2244 (d) provides:

(1) A 1-year period of limitation shall apply to an application for a writ of habeas corpus

by a person in custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court. The limitation period

shall run from the latest of--

(A) the date on which the judgment became final by the conclusion of direct

K:\COMMO N\BURNS\_CASES DJ\CIVIL\_ATTENTION - SIGNED ORD ERS\08cv0972 Dismissal.wpd, 6108 -2-

Sandgathe v. Maass, 314 F.3d 371, 376 (9th Cir. 2002). The constitutional claim raised in the federal

proceedings must be the same as that raised in the state proceedings. See Anderson, 459 U.S. at 6.

Here, Petitioner’s claim that the trial court violated his 6th and 14th Amendment rights when it

instructed the jury with CALJIC No. 2.92 regarding eyewitness identification was not presented to the

California Supreme Court. (Pet. 35.)

1. PETITIONER’S OPTIONS

Petitioner may choose one of the following options.

i) First Option: Demonstrate Exhaustion

Petitioner may file further papers with this Court to demonstrate that he has in fact exhausted the

claim the Court has determined are likely unexhausted. If Petitioner chooses this option, his papers are

due no later than July 21, 2008. Respondent may file a reply by August 5, 2008.

ii) Second Option: Voluntarily Dismiss the Petition

Petitioner may move to voluntarily dismiss his entire federal petition and return to state court to

exhaust his unexhausted claim. Petitioner may then file a new federal petition containing only exhausted

claims. SeeRose v. Lundy, 455 U.S. 509, 510, 520-21 (1982) (stating that a petitioner who files a mixed

petition may dismiss his petition to “return[] to state court to exhaust his claims”). If Petitioner chooses

this second option, he must file a pleading with this Court no later than July 21, 2008. Respondent may

file a reply by August 5, 2008. 

Petitioner is cautioned that any new federal petition must be filed before expiration of the oneyear statute of limitations. Ordinarily, a petitioner has one year from when his conviction became final

to file his federal petition, unless he can show that statutory or equitable “tolling” applies. Duncan v.

Walker, 533 U.S. 167, 176 (2001); 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d).2 Filing a petition in federal court does not stop

Case 3:08-cv-00972-LAB-WMC Document 3 Filed 06/10/08 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

review or the expiration of the time for seeking such review;

(B) the date on which the impediment to filing an application created by State

action in violation of the Constitution or laws of the United States is removed, if the

applicant was prevented from filing by such State action;

(C) the date on which the constitutional right asserted was initially recognized by

the Supreme Court, if the right has been newly recognized by the Supreme Court and

made retroactively applicable to cases on collateral review; or

(D) the date on which the factual predicate of the claim or claims presented could

have been discovered through the exercise of due diligence.

(2) The time during which a properly filed application for State post-conviction or other

collateral review with respect to the pertinent judgement or claim is pending shall not be

counted toward any period of limitation under this subsection.

3

28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(2) provides that a claim presented in a second or successive habeas

corpus application under § 2254 shall be dismissed unless: 

(A) the applicant shows that the claim relies on a new rule of constitutional law, made

retroactive to cases on collateral review by the Supreme Court, that was previously

unavailable; or 

(B) (i) the factual predicate for the claim could not have been discovered previously

through the exercise of due diligence; and 

(ii) the facts underlying the claim, if proven and viewed in light of the evidence as a

whole, would be sufficient to establish by clear and convincing evidence that, but for

constitutional error, no reasonable factfinder would have found the applicant guilty of

the underlying offense. 

K:\COMMO N\BURNS\_CASES DJ\CIVIL\_ATTENTION - SIGNED ORD ERS\08cv0972 Dismissal.wpd, 6108 -3-

the statute of limitations from running. Id. at 181-82; Frye v. Hickman, 273 F.3d 1144, 1145-46 (9th

Cir. 2001); 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d).

iii) Third Option: Formally Abandon Unexhausted Claim

Petitioner may formally abandon his unexhausted claim and proceed with his exhausted ones.

See Rose, 455 U.S. at 510, 520-21 (stating that a petitioner who files a mixed petition may “resubmit[]

the habeas petition to present only exhausted claims”). If Petitioner chooses this third option, he must

file a pleading with this Court no later than July 21, 2008. Respondent may file a reply by August 5,

2008.

Petitioner is cautioned that once he abandons his unexhausted claim, he may lose the ability to

ever raise it in federal court. See Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 488 (2000) (stating that a court’s

ruling on the merits of claims presented in a first § 2254 petition renders any later petition successive);

see also 28 U.S.C. § 2244 (a)-(b).3

iv) Fourth Option: File a Motion to Stay the Federal Proceedings

Petitioner may move to stay this federal proceeding while he returns to state court to exhaust his

unexhausted claim. See Jackson v. Roe, 425 F.3d 654, 660 (9th Cir. 2005) (interpreting Rhines v. Weber,

Case 3:08-cv-00972-LAB-WMC Document 3 Filed 06/10/08 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

K:\COMMO N\BURNS\_CASES DJ\CIVIL\_ATTENTION - SIGNED ORD ERS\08cv0972 Dismissal.wpd, 6108 -4-

544 U.S. 269 (2005) as permitting a district court to stay a mixed petition while the petitioner returns

to state court); Valerio v. Crawford, 306 F.3d. 742, 770-71 (9th Cir. 2002) (en banc); Calderon v. United

States Dist. Ct. for the N. Dist. of Cal., 134 F.3d 981, 986-88 (9th Cir. 1998). If Petitioner chooses this

fourth option, he must file a pleading with this Court no later than July 21, 2008. Respondent may file

a reply by August 5, 2008.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Accordingly, the Court DISMISSES the Petition without prejudice due to Petitioner’s failure

to, (1) pay the filing fee or move to proceed in forma pauperis; and (2) allege exhaustion as to state court

remedies. To have this case reopened, Petitioner must no later than July 21, 2008 submit a copy of this

Order with the $5.00 fee or with adequate proof of his inability to pay the fee AND choose one of the

above options regarding Ground Six. The Clerk of Court is directed to send Petitioner a blank First

Amended Petition and In Forma Pauperis application along with a copy of this Order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: June 6, 2008

HONORABLE LARRY ALAN BURNS

United States District Judge

Case 3:08-cv-00972-LAB-WMC Document 3 Filed 06/10/08 Page 4 of 4