Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-00762/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-00762-0/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

TERI ANN WHITTINGTON, 

Petitioner,

 vs.

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF

CALIFORNIA, 

Respondent. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C 06-0762 JSW (PR)

ORDER DISMISSING HABEAS

PETITION FOR FAILURE TO

EXHAUST STATE REMEDIES

Petitioner, a state prisoner incarcerated at Napa State Hospital in Napa,

California, filed a pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 on

February 2, 2006. Petitioner has paid the filing fee. Petitioner challenges the validity of

her guilty plea, which resulted in a three year sentence, on the grounds that at the time of

the plea, she was incompetent to stand trial. Petitioner alleges in a declaration filed on

February 28, 2006 (docket no. 3) that the grounds raised in the petition were not

previously raised in any other court because she was unaware that they were grounds for

an appeal. 

A state prisoner who wishes to challenge collaterally in federal habeas

proceedings either the fact or length of their confinement is 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 claim he seeks to raise in federal court. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b),(c); Rose v. Lundy,

455 U.S. 509, 515-16 (1982); Duckworth v. Serrano, 454 U.S. 1, 3 (1981); McNeeley v.

Case 3:06-cv-00762-JSW Document 6 Filed 07/14/06 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

Arave, 842 F.2d 230, 231 (9th Cir. 1988). The state's highest court must be given an

opportunity to rule on the claims even if review is discretionary. See O'Sullivan v.

Boerckel, 526 U.S. 838, 845 (1999) (petitioner must invoke “one complete round of the

State’s established appellate review process.”). 

In this case, Petitioner notes in the petition that she has not brought any prior

appeal or collateral challenges in the state courts regarding this claim. As a result, she

has not exhausted her state remedies, and the petition must be dismissed. Rose, 455 U.S.

at 510. A dismissal solely for failure to exhaust is not a bar to Petitioner returning to

federal court after exhausting available state remedies, if the relief she seeks is not

granted there. Trimble v. City of Santa Rosa, 49 F.3d 583, 586 (9th Cir. 1995).

Accordingly, this petition is DISMISSED without prejudice to Petitioner filing a

new federal habeas corpus petition once she has exhausted state remedies by presenting

her claims to the highest state court. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: July 14, 2006

 JEFFREY S. WHITE

United States District Judge

Case 3:06-cv-00762-JSW Document 6 Filed 07/14/06 Page 2 of 2