Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_06-cv-03624/USCOURTS-cand-5_06-cv-03624-1/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

Order of Dismissal 

P:\pro-se\sj.jf\hc.06\Gilmore624dis 1

NOT FOR CITATION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JAMES PAUL GILMORE, JR., 

Petitioner,

 vs.

JEANNE WOODFORD,

Respondent. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C 06-3624 JF (PR)

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed a petition for a writ of habeas

corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging the calculation of his custody credits

pursuant to his parole revocation. Petitioner provided documentation of his first level of

appeal in the prison administrative appeal process. However, Petitioner did not allege

that he presented any of his claims to the California Supreme Court prior to filing this

habeas action. See Petition at 3-9. On February 27, 2007, the Court ordered Petitioner to

show cause why the petition should not be dismissed without prejudice because he had

not exhausted his state court remedies prior to filing the instant petition. The Court

directed Petitioner to file a response within thirty days stating: (1) whether he has an

appeal, habeas petition or other post-conviction proceeding now pending before the state

court; and (2) whether he has presented the claims in the instant petition to the California

**Original filed 5/9/07**

Case 5:06-cv-03624-JF Document 8 Filed 05/09/07 Page 1 of 3
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

 The Court notes that Petitioner should act with due diligence to exhaust his claims in

the state supreme court if he intends to return to this Court based upon AEDPA’s statute of

limitations for his federal habeas petition. See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d). 

Order of Dismissal 

P:\pro-se\sj.jf\hc.06\Gilmore624dis 2

Supreme Court. The Court notified Petitioner that the failure to file a timely response

would result in the Court dismissing the instant petition without prejudice for failure to

exhaust state court remedies. 

As of the date of this order, Petitioner has not responded to the Court’s order, nor

communicated with the Court. Accordingly, the instant petition is DISMISSED without

prejudice for failure to exhaust state court remedies. The Clerk shall terminate any

pending motions and close the file.1

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: _______________ 

JEREMY FOGEL

United States District Judge

5/9/07

Case 5:06-cv-03624-JF Document 8 Filed 05/09/07 Page 2 of 3
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

Order of Dismissal 

P:\pro-se\sj.jf\hc.06\Gilmore624dis 3

A copy of this ruling was mailed to the following:

James Paul Gilmore, Jr.

P-46444

CA State Prison - Avenal

P.O. Box 9

Avenal, CA 93204 

Case 5:06-cv-03624-JF Document 8 Filed 05/09/07 Page 3 of 3