Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-01857/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-01857-0/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

K :\C O M M O N \E V E R Y O N E \_EFILE-PRO SE\L A B \11cv1857-D eny& D ism iss.w pd, 82311 -1- 11cv1857

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOHN M. SHEA, Civil No. 11cv1857-LAB (CAB)

Petitioner, ORDER:

(1) DENYING IN FORMA PAUPERIS

APPLICATION;

(2) DISMISSING CASE WITHOUT

PREJUDICE; AND

(3) NOTIFYING PETITIONER OF

OPTIONS TO AVOID FUTURE

DISMISSAL FOR FAILURE TO

ALLEGE COMPLETE EXHAUSTION

OF STATE COURT REMEDIES

v.

MATTHEW CATE, Secretary,

Respondent.

Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed a Petition for a 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).

REQUEST 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 officershowing 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

provide the Court with the required Prison Certificate. 

Case 3:11-cv-01857-LAB-CAB Document 3 Filed 08/23/11 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

K :\C O M M O N \E V E R Y O N E \_EFILE-PRO SE\L A B \11cv1857-D eny& D ism iss.w pd, 82311 -2- 11cv1857

Because this Court cannot proceed until Petitioner has satisfied the filing fee requirement,

the Petition is DISMISSED without prejudice. If Petitioner wishes to proceed with this action,

he must either pay the $5.00 filing fee or provide the Court with the required Prison Certificate

on or before September 26, 2011.

FAILURE TO ALLEGE EXHAUSTION OF STATE JUDICIAL REMEDIES

Further, 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); Granberry v. Greer, 481 U.S. 129, 133-34 (1987). 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); Granberry, 481 U.S. at 133-34. Moreover, to properly exhaust state court

remedies a petitioner must allege, in state court, how one or more of his or her federal rights

have been violated. The Supreme Court in Duncan v. Henry, 513 U.S. 364 (1995) reasoned:

“If state courts are to be given the opportunity to correct alleged violations of prisoners’ federal

rights, they must surely be alerted to the fact that the prisoners are asserting claims under the

United States Constitution.” Id. at 365-66 (emphasis added). For example, “[i]f a habeas

petitioner wishes to claim that an evidentiary ruling at a state court trial denied him [or her] the

due process of law guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment, he [or she] must say so, not only

in federal court, but in state court.” Id. at 366 (emphasis added).

Although Petitioner indicates that he has presented claim one to the state Supreme Court,

he does not indicate whether he has raised claims two and three in the California Supreme Court.

(Pet. at 4, 6-8.) If Petitioner has raised claims two and three in the California Supreme Court he

must so specify. The burden of proving that a claim has been exhausted lies with the petitioner.

Cartwright v. Cupp, 650 F.2d 1103, 1104 (9th Cir. 1981).

Generally, applications for writs of habeas corpus that contain unexhausted claims must

be dismissed. See Rose v. Lundy, 455 U.S. 509, 522 (1982). However, federal courts have the

discretion to deny a habeas application on the merits notwithstanding a petitioner’s failure to

fully exhaust state judicial remedies. See 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254(b)(2) (West 2006); Liegakos v.

Case 3:11-cv-01857-LAB-CAB Document 3 Filed 08/23/11 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

 28 U.S.C. § 2244 (d) provides:

1

(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 :\C O M M O N \E V E R Y O N E \_EFILE-PRO SE\L A B \11cv1857-D eny& D ism iss.w pd, 82311 -3- 11cv1857

Cooke, 106 F.3d 1381, 1388 (7th Cir. 1997). Assuming Petitioner satisfies the filing fee

requirement and has this case reopened, the Petition will be subject to dismissal for failure to

allege complete exhaustion of state judicial remedies as to all claims presented. In order to avoid

such a dismissal, Petitioner should consider the following options.

i) First Option: Demonstrate Exhaustion

Petitioner may file further papers with this Court to demonstrate that he has in fact

exhausted claims two and three. Or, he may file a First Amended Petition in which he alleges

complete exhaustion of all claims presented.

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 claims. 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”).

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 1

Case 3:11-cv-01857-LAB-CAB Document 3 Filed 08/23/11 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

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

§ 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 :\C O M M O N \E V E R Y O N E \_EFILE-PRO SE\L A B \11cv1857-D eny& D ism iss.w pd, 82311 -4- 11cv1857

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 Claims

Petitioner may formally abandon his unexhausted claim(s) and proceed with his exhausted

one(s). 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”).

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

ability to ever raise them in 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).2

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(s). There are two methods available to Petitioner, the “stay

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

Case 3:11-cv-01857-LAB-CAB Document 3 Filed 08/23/11 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

K :\C O M M O N \E V E R Y O N E \_EFILE-PRO SE\L A B \11cv1857-D eny& D ism iss.w pd, 82311 -5- 11cv1857

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 are arguably meritorious claim(s) which he wishes to return to state court to

exhaust, that he is diligently pursuing his state court remedies with respect to those claim(s), 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(s), 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(s) after exhaustion is

complete. King v. Ryan, 564 F.3d. 1133, 1135 (9th Cir. 2009). Although under this procedure

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

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

claim(s) in the fully-exhausted petition, that is, they must share a “common core of operative

facts” with the previously exhausted claim(s). King, 564 F.3d at 1141, quoting Mayle v. Felix,

545 U.S. 644. 659 (2005).

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Petitioner’s Motion to proceed in forma pauperis is DENIED and this case is

DISMISSED without prejudice for failing to satisfy the filing fee requirement. If Petitioner

wishes to proceed with this action he must either pay the $5.00 filing fee or provide the Court

with the required Prison Certificate on or before September 26, 2011. In addition, the Court

NOTIFIES PETITIONER THAT THE PETITION AS CURRENTLY WRITTEN IS

SUBJECT TO DISMISSAL ON THE BASIS THAT PETITIONER HAS NOT ALLEGED

COMPLETE EXHAUSTION OF STATE COURT REMEDIES. If Petitioner satisfies the

filing fee requirement but, on or before September 26, 2011, fails to either notify the Court of

his intention to proceed under one of the options outlined above or file a First Amended Petition

in which he alleges exhaustion of state court remedies as to every claim presented, the Petition

/ / /

Case 3:11-cv-01857-LAB-CAB Document 3 Filed 08/23/11 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 Although the dismissal is “without prejudice,” Petitioner is again cautioned that any later federal petition may be 3

barred by the statute of limitations. See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1)-(2); see also footnote two of this Order.

K :\C O M M O N \E V E R Y O N E \_EFILE-PRO SE\L A B \11cv1857-D eny& D ism iss.w pd, 82311 -6- 11cv1857

will be dismissed without prejudice. See Rose, 455 U.S. at 522. Petitioner will then be 3

required, if he still wishes to proceed with his claims, to file a new habeas petition which will

be provided a new civil case number. The Clerk of Court shall send Petitioner a blank Southern

District of California in forma pauperis application which includes the proper Prison Certificate

and a blank Southern District of California amended petition form along with a copy of this

Order

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: August 22, 2011

HONORABLE LARRY ALAN BURNS

United States District Judge

Case 3:11-cv-01857-LAB-CAB Document 3 Filed 08/23/11 Page 6 of 6