Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_05-cv-00995/USCOURTS-cand-4_05-cv-00995-0/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

1 Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37, 54 (1971). 

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

NOT FOR CITATION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CLIVE FRANK BOUSTRED,

Petitioner,

 vs.

JUDITH A. COX, Chief Probation

Officer, et al., 

Respondents. /

No. C 05-0995 PJH (PR)

ORDER GRANTING MOTION

TO DISMISS

(Docs 9, 21 & 23)

This is a habeas case filed pro se by a petitioner who is on probation from a state

criminal conviction. Before the court for ruling is respondent’s opposed motion to dismiss

on abstention grounds. 

 Respondent contends that the court should abstain because state direct appeal

proceedings are pending. Petitioner does not deny that the appeal is pending.

 The Ninth Circuit has held unequivocally that the exhaustion requirement is not

satisfied if there is a pending proceeding in state court, even if the issue the petitioner

seeks to raise in federal court has been finally determined by the highest available state

court in another context. Sherwood v. Tomkins, 716 F.2d 632, 634 (9th Cir. 1983). This is

because the pending state action might result in reversal of the conviction on some other

ground, mooting the federal case. See id. 

Although Younger abstention1

 might seem a better rationale for this requirement

than exhaustion, see Phillips v. Vasquez, 56 F.3d 1030, 1038-39 (9th Cir. 1995)

(concurring opinion), the court is nevertheless required to follow Sherwood. 

Case 4:05-cv-00995-PJH Document 25 Filed 03/14/06 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

The petition must be dismissed without prejudice to refiling it when no further

proceedings are pending in the California state courts. See Sherwood, 716 F.2d at 634 (if

state court action is pending, claims are not exhausted). 

CONCLUSION

Respondent’s motion to dismiss (doc 9) is GRANTED. Petitioner’s motions to

dismiss the state cases against him (docs 21 & 23) are DENIED as moot. The clerk shall

close the file.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 14, 2006.

 PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON

United States District Judge

G:\PRO-SE\PJH\CR.05\BOUSTRED995.DSM

Case 4:05-cv-00995-PJH Document 25 Filed 03/14/06 Page 2 of 2