Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-01222/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-01222-0/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

For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

HOMER EARL HAWKINS,

Petitioner,

v.

JOHN GRADSAERT; et al., 

Respondents. /

No. C 07-1222 SI (pr)

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

Homer Earl Hawkins, currently incarcerated at the Ironwood State Prison, has filed this

pro se action seeking a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. His petition

challenges his 2005 conviction in the San Mateo County Superior Court. His appeal from the

judgment of conviction was pending in the California Court of Appeal when he filed this action.

Petition, pp. 3, 5. 

Prisoners in state custody who want to challenge either the fact or length of their

confinement in federal court by a petition for a writ of habeas corpus 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

issue they seek to raise in federal court. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(1)(A),(c); Duckworth v.

Serrano, 454 U.S. 1, 3 (1981). If available state remedies have not been exhausted as to all

claims, the district court must dismiss the petition. See id. at 4-5. The exhaustion requirement

is not satisfied if there is a pending post-conviction proceeding in state court. See Sherwood v.

Tomkins, 716 F.2d 632, 634 (9th Cir. 1983). If an appeal or collateral challenge of a state

criminal conviction is pending, a would-be federal habeas petitioner must await the outcome of

Case 3:07-cv-01222-SI Document 6 Filed 06/21/07 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

2

the state court action before his state remedies are considered exhausted, even where the issue

to be raised in the petition for writ of habeas corpus has been finally settled in the state courts.

See id. Even if the federal constitutional question raised by the petitioner cannot be resolved in

a pending state action, that action may result in the reversal of the petitioner's conviction on

some other ground, thereby mooting the federal question. See id. (citations omitted); cf. Phillips

v. Vasquez, 56 F.3d 1030, 1036 (9th Cir. 1995) (allowing death penalty defendant's habeas

challenge to guilt determination even though state court challenge to his sentence of death was

still pending; extraordinary delay in adjudicating the latter excused exhaustion requirement and,

unlike Sherwood, there was no danger that the pending state appeal would moot the federal

court's decision).

Hawkins' criminal appeal was pending when he filed this action. He must await the

outcome of that state court challenge to his conviction before presenting his claims in federal

court. Until that proceeding is concluded, a habeas petition in this court is premature and must

be dismissed. Because Hawkins has not exhausted his state court remedies, his petition is

DISMISSED.

After Hawkins exhausts his state court remedies, he may file a new petition for writ of

habeas corpus. He is cautioned not to file an amended petition in this action and not to use the

case number for this action because this action is being closed today. When he files a new

petition, he should put no case number on the first page, and should submit it with the $5.00

filing fee or a completed in forma pauperis application. At that time, the court will give the new

petition a new case number. Any new petition should also have a proper respondent; the proper

respondent is the warden for the prison in which the petitioner is located at the time he files his

petition. 

The in forma pauperis applications are GRANTED. (Docket # 2and # 4.)

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: June 21, 2007 

 SUSAN ILLSTON

United States District Judge

Case 3:07-cv-01222-SI Document 6 Filed 06/21/07 Page 2 of 2