Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_14-cv-00037/USCOURTS-casd-3_14-cv-00037-0/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ANDRE RUBIDOUX, Civil No. 14-CV-0037-H (MDD) 

Petitioner,

ORDER DENYING

PETITIONER’S MOTION TO

FILE IN CALIFORNIA SUPREME

COURT AS MOOT

[Doc. No. 9]

v.

R. GROUNDS, Warden,

Respondent.

On March 14, 2014, Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed a first

amended petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, (Doc. No. 5.)

On April 9, 2014, the Court dismissed the petition without prejudice because Petitioner

failed to allege exhaustion of his state judicial remedies. (Doc. No. 7.) On May 2, 2014,

Petitioner filed a motion seeking permission from the Court to file an amended petition

to the California Supreme Court in State Case No. S186141. (Doc. No. 9.)

Habeas petitioners who wish to challenge either their state court conviction or the

length of their confinement in state prison, must first exhaust state judicial remedies. 28

U.S.C. § 2254(b); (c); Banks v. Dretke, 540 U.S. 668, 690 (2004). To exhaust state

judicial remedies, a California state prisoner must present the California Supreme Court

with a fair opportunity to rule on the merits of every issue raised in his or her federal

habeas petition. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b), (c); Pombrio v. Hense, 631 F. Supp. 2d 1247, 1251

(C.D. Cal. 2009).

-1-

Case 3:14-cv-00037-H-MDD Document 10 Filed 05/08/14 Page 1 of 2
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

Habeas proceedings in California State Court are governed by California statute.

See Cal. PenalCode §§ 1473 et. seq. The Court takes no position on whether Petitioner’s

filing an amended petition with the California Supreme Court comports withCalifornia’s

procedural requirements. Accordingly, the Court denies Petitioner’s motion for

permission to file with the California Supreme Court as moot.

Nonetheless, the Court has no objection to Petitioner filing with the California

Supreme Court, and subsequently filing a Second Amended Petition with this Court. To

reopen his case, Petitioner must file a Second Amended Petition that cures the pleading

deficiencies set forth in the Court’s previous order no later than sixty (60) days after

receiving a ruling in State Case No. S186141. (See Doc. No. 7 at 4.) 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: May 8, 2014 

_________________________________

Marilyn L. Huff, District Judge

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Copies to: ALL PARTIES

-2-

Case 3:14-cv-00037-H-MDD Document 10 Filed 05/08/14 Page 2 of 2