Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-02111/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-02111-0/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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CHARLES M. FORDJOUR,

Petitioner,

 v.

ROBERT L. AYERS, et al.,

Respondents. ______________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C 07-2111 MMC (PR)

ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH

LEAVE TO AMEND; DENYING

EMERGENCY MOTION FOR

STATUS

(Docket No. 3)

On March 20, 2007, petitioner, a California prisoner incarcerated at San Quentin State

Prison and proceeding pro se, initiated the above-titled action in the Eastern District of

California by filing an “Emergency Petition for All Writs Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1651; Declaratory

Relief; and Emergency Motion for Relief from Unconstitutional Confinement Pursuant to

FRAP 23 and 28 U.S.C. § 1651.” In said “petition,” petitioner asserts the revocation of his

parole, on February 21, 2007 in Contra Costa County, violated federal law; he seeks release

from custody. On April 16, 2007, the Eastern District construed the petition as a petition for

a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, which provides for a writ of habeas

corpus “in behalf of a person in custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court only on the

ground that he is in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United

States,” see Rose v. Hodges, 423 U.S. 19, 21 (1975); see also Hill v. McDonough, 126 S. Ct.

2096, 2101 (2006) (finding challenges to lawfulness of confinement or to particulars

affecting its duration are province of habeas corpus), and transferred the case to this court. 

It appears from the petition, however, that petitioner has not exhausted his state court

remedies. Prisoners in state custody who wish to challenge collaterally in federal habeas

proceedings either the fact or length of their confinement are first required to exhaust state

judicial remedies, either on direct appeal or through collateral proceedings, by presenting the

Case 3:07-cv-02111-MMC Document 4 Filed 06/11/07 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

highest state court available with a fair opportunity to rule on the merits of each and every

claim they seek to raise in federal court. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)-(c). Consequently, before

petitioner may challenge either the fact or length of his confinement in a habeas petition in

this court, he must present to the California Supreme Court any claims he wishes to raise

herein. See Rose v. Lundy, 455 U.S. 509, 522 (1982) (holding every claim raised in federal

habeas petition must be exhausted). Petitioner does not indicate anywhere in his petition that

he has presented his claims to the California Supreme Court, either on direct appeal or

through collateral proceedings. Moreover, petitioner states in his petition that his parole was

revoked on February 21, 2007, a date only 27 days before he filed the instant petition. 

Although it is unlikely that petitioner was able to exhaust his claims in such a short period of

time, petitioner will be given leave to file an amended petition to allege, if he can do so in

good faith, that he has properly presented his claims, either on direct appeal or through

collateral proceedings, to the California Supreme Court. 

Accordingly, the above-titled action is hereby DISMISSED, with leave to file an

amended petition within thirty (30) days of the date this order is filed. Petitioner's amended

petition shall be filed on the court's form for habeas petitions, and shall cure the deficiencies

noted above. The amended petition must include the caption and civil case number used in

this order (No. C 07-2111 MMC (PR)), and must include the words AMENDED PETITION

on the first page. Petitioner must include in the amended petition all the claims he

wishes to present, and he may not include any unexhausted claims or incorporate

material from any prior petitions by reference. Failure to file an amended petition in

conformity with this order shall result in the dismissal of this action without prejudice.

In light of the above, petitioner’s “Emergency Motion for Status on Petition,” filed

May 18, 2007, is hereby DENIED as moot. 

This order terminates Docket No. 3. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: June 11, 2007 _____________________________

MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge

Case 3:07-cv-02111-MMC Document 4 Filed 06/11/07 Page 2 of 2