Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_12-cv-01870/USCOURTS-casd-3_12-cv-01870-0/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

EDWARD ANTHONY THROOP, Civil No. 12-1870 LAB (NLS)

Petitioner,

(1) ORDER DENYING IN FORMA

PAUPERIS APPLICATION and

(2) NOTICE REGARDING POSSIBLE

DISMISSAL OF PETITION FOR

FAILURE TO EXHAUST STATE

COURT REMEDIES

v.

RALPH DIAZ, Warden,

Respondent.

Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has not paid the $5.00 filing fee and has

filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, together with a request

to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a).

APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS

The request to proceed in forma pauperis is denied because Petitioner has not provided

the Court with sufficient information to determine Petitioner’s financial status. A request to

proceed in forma pauperis made by a state prisoner must include a certificate from the warden

or other appropriate officer showing the amount of money or securities Petitioner has on account

in the institution. Rule 3(a)(2), 28 U.S.C. foll. § 2254; Local Rule 3.2. Petitioner has failed to

K:\COMMON\EVERYONE\_EFILE-PROSE\LAB\12cv1870 deny ifp & dismiss.wpd, 81712 -1-

Case 3:12-cv-01870-LAB-NLS Document 3 Filed 08/17/12 Page 1 of 6
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

provide the Court with the required Prison Certificate. In a letter attached to his application to

proceed in forma pauperis, Petitioner states that he requested his prison trust account statement

in early July but he had not received it as of July 24, 2012, and could not wait to file his Petition

until the prison delivered the statement. However, as of today’s date, no prison trust account

statement has been received by the Court. Accordingly, Petitioner’s request to proceed in forma

pauperis is DENIED. 

FAILURE TO ALLEGE EXHAUSTION OF STATE COURT REMEDIES

Petitioner has not alleged exhaustion as to claim one. (See Pet. at 6.) Having

preliminarilydetermined the petition contains an unexhausted claim, the Court notifies Petitioner

of the possible dismissal of his petition. 

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. See Sandgathe v. Maass, 314

1

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 id. 

Here, Petitioner has not alleged exhaustion as to claim one in which he argues his rights

to a fair trial and due process under the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments were violated because

the government interfered with his right to present witnesses. (Pet. at 6.)

//

//

//

//

 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (b)(1)-(2) states: 1

(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 -

(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 

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

K:\COMMON\EVERYONE\_EFILE-PROSE\LAB\12cv1870 deny ifp & dismiss.wpd, 81712 -2-

Case 3:12-cv-01870-LAB-NLS Document 3 Filed 08/17/12 Page 2 of 6
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. PETITIONER’S OPTIONS

To avoid the Court dismissing the petition on its own accord, 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 claims the Court has determined are likely unexhausted. If Petitioner chooses this

option, his papers are due no later than October 16, 2012 and Respondent may file a reply by

October 31, 2012.

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. See Rose v. Lundy, 455 U.S. 509, 510, 520-21 (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 October 16, 2012 Respondent may file a reply by October 31, 2012.. 

Petitioner is cautioned that any new federal petition must be filed before expiration of the

one-year 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). The statute of 2

 28 U.S.C. § 2244 (d) provides: 2

(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 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.

K:\COMMON\EVERYONE\_EFILE-PROSE\LAB\12cv1870 deny ifp & dismiss.wpd, 81712 -3-

Case 3:12-cv-01870-LAB-NLS Document 3 Filed 08/17/12 Page 3 of 6
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

limitations does not run while a properly filed state habeas corpus petition is pending. 28 U.S.C.

§ 2244(d)(2); see Nino v. Galaza, 183 F.3d 1003, 1006 (9th Cir. 1999). But see Artuz v.

Bennett, 531 U.S. 4, 8 (2000) (holding that “an application is ‘properly filed’ when its delivery

and acceptance [by the appropriate court officer for placement into the record] are in compliance

with the applicable laws and rules governing filings.”); Bonner v. Carey, 425 F.3d 1145, 1149

(9th Cir. 2005) (holding that a state application for post-conviction relief which is ultimately

dismissed as untimely was neither “properly filed” nor “pending” while it was under

consideration by the state court, and therefore does not toll the statute of limitations), as

amended 439 F.3d 993. However, absent some other basis for tolling, the statute of limitations

continues to run while a federal habeas petition is pending. Duncan, 533 U.S. at 181-82.

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 October 16, 2012 Respondent

may file a reply by October 31, 2012..

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

ability to ever raise it 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

//

//

//

28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(2) provides that a claim presented in a second orsuccessive habeas corpus application under 3

§ 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:\COMMON\EVERYONE\_EFILE-PROSE\LAB\12cv1870 deny ifp & dismiss.wpd, 81712 -4-

Case 3:12-cv-01870-LAB-NLS Document 3 Filed 08/17/12 Page 4 of 6
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

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

Petitioner may file a motion to stay this federal proceeding while he returns to state court

to exhaust his unexhausted claim. There are two methods available to Petitioner, the “stay and

abeyance” procedure and the “withdrawal and abeyance” procedure.

If Petitioner wishes to use the “stay and abeyance” procedure he should ask the Court to

stay his mixed petition while he returns to state court to exhaust. Under this procedure he must

demonstrate there is an arguably meritorious claim which he wishes to return to state court to

exhaust, that he is diligently pursuing his state court remedies with respect to that claim, and that

good cause exists for his failure to timely exhaust his state court remedies. Rhines v. Webber,

544 U.S. 269, 277-78 (2005). 

If Petitioner wishes to use the “withdrawal and abeyance” procedure, he must voluntarily

withdraw his unexhausted claim, ask the Court to stay the proceedings and hold the

fully-exhausted petition in abeyance while he returns to state court to exhaust, and then seek

permission to amend his petition to include the newly exhausted claim after exhaustion is

complete. King v. Ryan, 564 F.3d 1133 (9th Cir. May 5, 2009). Although under this procedure

Petitioner is not required to demonstrate good cause for his failure to timely exhaust, the newly

exhausted claim must be either timely under the statute of limitations or “relate back” to the

claim in the fully-exhausted petition, that is, theymust share a “common core of operative facts”

with the previously exhausted claim. King, 564 F.3d at1143, quoting Mayle v. Felix, 545 U.S.

644. 659 (2005).

If Petitioner chooses this fourth option, he must file a pleading with this Court no later

than October 16, 2012 Respondent may file a reply by October 31, 2012.

//

//

//

//

//

//

K:\COMMON\EVERYONE\_EFILE-PROSE\LAB\12cv1870 deny ifp & dismiss.wpd, 81712 -5-

Case 3:12-cv-01870-LAB-NLS Document 3 Filed 08/17/12 Page 5 of 6
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

3. CONCLUSION

Accordingly, the Court DENIES the request to proceed in forma pauperis, and

DISMISSES the case without prejudice. The Court further NOTIFIES PETITIONER THAT

HE HAS FILED A PETITION THAT CONTAINS BOTH EXHAUSTED AND

UNEXHAUSTED CLAIMS. 

To have the case reopened, Petitioner must, no later than October 16, 2012, provide the

Court with: (1) a copy of this Order together with the $5.00 filing fee; or (2) a copy of this

Order together with adequate proof that Petitioner cannot pay the $5.00 filing fee, AND choose

one of the aforementioned options regarding his unexhausted claim. The Clerk of Court is

directed to send Petitioner a blank Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis form along with

a copy of this Order. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: August 17, 2012

HONORABLE LARRY ALAN BURNS

United States District Judge

K:\COMMON\EVERYONE\_EFILE-PROSE\LAB\12cv1870 deny ifp & dismiss.wpd, 81712 -6-

Case 3:12-cv-01870-LAB-NLS Document 3 Filed 08/17/12 Page 6 of 6