Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_07-cv-00749/USCOURTS-casd-3_07-cv-00749-0/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

-1- 07cv0749

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

EUGENE ORANGE, Civil No. 07-0749 J (NLS)

Petitioner,

ORDER DISMISSING CASE WITHOUT

vs. PREJUDICE

JAMES TILTON, Secretary

Respondent.

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

under 28 U.S.C. § 2254.

FAILURE TO SATISFY FILING FEE REQUIREMENT

Petitioner has failed to pay the $5.00 filing fee and has failed to move to proceed in forma

pauperis. This Court cannot proceed until Petitioner has either paid the $5.00 filing fee or

qualified to proceed in forma pauperis. See Rule 3(a), 28 U.S.C. foll. § 2254. 

FAILURE TO ALLEGE EXHAUSTION 

WITH RESPECT TO ALL CLAIMS IN THE 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,

Case 3:07-cv-00749-JAH-AJB Document 2 Filed 05/11/07 Page 1 of 4
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

 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (b)(1)-(2) states:

(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 

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

-2- 07cv0749

either on direct appeal or through state collateral proceedings.1 See Sandgathe v. Maass, 314

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 Anderson, 459 U.S. at 6.

Here, Petitioner acknowledges that he has not raised claim four, asserting ineffective

assistance of appellate counsel, in the California Supreme Court. (Pet. at 9.) Therefore, the

claim appears to be unexhausted. 

PETITIONER’S OPTIONS

Because Petitioner has failed to allege exhaustion of state court remedies with respect to

all the issues raised in his federal Petition, the Petition is subject to dismissal without prejudice.

The Court outlines Petitioner’s options as follows:

 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 July 9, 2007.

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 (1982)

(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 July 9, 2007. 

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”

Case 3:07-cv-00749-JAH-AJB Document 2 Filed 05/11/07 Page 2 of 4
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

 28 U.S.C. § 2244 (d) provides:

(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.

3

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

§ 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. 

-3- 07cv0749

applies. Duncan v. Walker, 533 U.S. 167, 176 (2001); 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d).2 Filing a petition

in federal court does not stop the statute of limitations from running. Id. at 181-82; Frye v.

Hickman, 273 F.3d 1144, 1145-46 (9th Cir. 2001); 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d).

iii) Third Option: Formally Abandon Unexhausted Claims

Petitioner may formally abandon his unexhausted claims 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 July 9, 2007. .

Petitioner is cautioned that once he abandons his unexhausted claims, 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).3

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

Petitioner may move to dismiss his unexhausted claims without prejudice and stay this

federal proceeding while he returns to state court to exhaust his unexhausted claims. Calderon

Case 3:07-cv-00749-JAH-AJB Document 2 Filed 05/11/07 Page 3 of 4
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

-4- 07cv0749

v. U.S. Dist. Ct. for the N. Dist. of Cal., 134 F.3d 981, 986-88 (9th Cir. 1998); Valerio v.

Crawford, 306 F.3d. 742, 770-71 (9th Cir. 2002) (en banc). If Petitioner chooses this fourth

option, he must file a pleading with this Court no later than July 9, 2007. 

CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, the Court DISMISSES the Petition without prejudice because

Petitioner has failed to: (1) satisfy the filing fee requirement, and (2) allege exhaustion of state

judicial remedies with respect to all claims raised in the Petition. If Petitioner wishes to proceed

with this case, he must, no later than July 9, 2007: (1) either pay the $5.00 filing fee or submit

a copy of this Order with adequate proof of his inability to pay the filing, and (2) choose one of

the options set forth above by submitting either a “Supplemental Memorandum Demonstrating

Exhaustion, a“Motion to Dismiss Habeas Corpus Petition in Order to Exhaust State Court

Remedies,” a” a “Formal Declaration of Abandonment of Unexhausted Claims” or a “Motion

to Stay the Proceedings.” If Petitioner fails to respond to this Order, the case will remain

dismissed without prejudice.

For Petitioner’s convenience, the Clerk of Court shall attach to this Order, a blank

motion to proceed in forma pauperis form and blank First Amended Petition form.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: May 11, 2007

HON. NAPOLEON A. JONES, JR.

United States District Judge

Case 3:07-cv-00749-JAH-AJB Document 2 Filed 05/11/07 Page 4 of 4