Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_10-cv-01526/USCOURTS-cand-3_10-cv-01526-0/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)

---

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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RODNEY JEROME WOMACK,

Petitioner.

v.

J. WALKER, Warden,

Respondent. ______________________________

)

)

)

)

) 

)

)

)

)

)

No. C 10-1526 MMC (PR)

ORDER OF DISMISSAL; 

GRANTING LEAVE TO PROCEED

IN FORMA PAUPERIS

(Docket No. 2)

On April 9, 2010, petitioner, a California prisoner proceeding pro se, filed the abovetitled petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Petitioner challenges

the validity of his current confinement based on alleged ineffective assistance of counsel that

led to petitioner’s pleading guilty in 2002 for failing to register as a sex offender. Petitioner

seeks leave to proceed in forma pauperis. 

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

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. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)-(c), Rose v. Lundy, 455

U.S. 509, 515-16 (1982). The exhaustion-of-state-remedies doctrine reflects a policy of

federal-state comity to give the state “an initial opportunity to pass upon and correct alleged

violations of its prisoners’ federal rights.” Picard v. Connor, 404 U.S. 270, 275 (1971)

Case 3:10-cv-01526-MMC Document 5 Filed 04/23/10 Page 1 of 2
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

2

(quotation and citation omitted). If available state remedies have not been exhausted as to all

claims raised in a federal habeas corpus petition, the district court must dismiss the petition. 

See Rose, 455 U.S. at 510. A dismissal solely for failure to exhaust is not a bar to a

petitioner’s returning to federal court after exhausting available state remedies. See Trimble

v. City of Santa Rosa, 49 F.3d 583, 586 (9th Cir. 1995).

In the instant case, petitioner states in his petition that he is challenging his conviction

for failing to register as a sex offender on the ground that counsel provided ineffective

assistance by advising petitioner to plead guilty to such offense. Other information in the

petition and attachments thereto, however, shows that such claim was not exhausted in state

court. Rather, petitioner presented his claim by way of state habeas corpus only to the

Alameda County Superior Court, which denied relief on March 29, 2010. (Pet. at 4:18-25,

9:1-19 & Ex. A.) Before petitioner may, by way of federal habeas corpus, raise a claim

challenging the validity of his plea, he must present such claim in the state courts, including

the Supreme Court of California. As petitioner has not presented his ineffective assistance of

counsel claim to the highest state court, he has not exhausted his state remedies. 

Accordingly, the instant petition is hereby DISMISSED. Such dismissal is without

prejudice to petitioner’s filing a new federal habeas petition once he has exhausted his state

remedies by presenting his claims to the highest state court. 

In light of petitioner’s lack of funds, the application to proceed in forma pauperis is

hereby GRANTED. 

This order terminates Docket No. 2.

The Clerk shall close the file.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: April 23, 2010

____________________________

MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge 

Case 3:10-cv-01526-MMC Document 5 Filed 04/23/10 Page 2 of 2