Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-00628/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-00628-0/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

GARY D. BEARDEN,

Peititoner,

 v.

BILL LOCKYER, et al.,

Respondents.

__________________________

_

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C 05-0628 MMC (PR) 

ORDER OF DISMISSAL; GRANTING

LEAVE TO PROCEED IN FORMA

PAUPERIS

(Docket Nos. 2 & 4)

Petitioner, a California prisoner, filed the above-titled petition for a writ of habeas

corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, claiming the Parole Board’s failure to conduct a hearing

on his eligibility for parole violates his constitutional right to due process. It is clear from the

petition, however, that petitioner has not presented his claims to the Supreme Court of

California. 

A district court shall "award the writ or issue an order directing the respondent to show

cause why the writ should not be granted, unless it appears from the application that the

applicant or person detained is not entitled thereto." 28 U.S.C. § 2243. Summary dismissal is

appropriate where the allegations in the petition are vague or conclusory, palpably incredible,

or patently frivolous or false. See Hendricks v. Vasquez, 908 F.2d 490, 491 (9th Cir. 1990)

(quoting Blackledge v. Allison, 431 U.S. 63, 75-76 (1977)). 

Case 3:05-cv-00628-MMC Document 5 Filed 05/19/05 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

Prisoners in state custody who wish to challenge either the fact or length of their

confinement in federal court by a petition for a writ of habeas corpus are first required to

exhaust state judicial remedies, either on direct appeal or through state collateral proceedings,

by presenting the highest state court available with a fair opportunity to rule on the merits of

each and every issue they seek to raise in federal court. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b),(c);

Duckworth v. Serrano, 454 U.S. 1, 3 (1981). If available state remedies have not been

exhausted as to all claims, the district court must dismiss the petition. See id. at 4-5. 

Petitioner indicates on the form petition that he has not presented the claims raised herein to

any of the California courts. (See Pet. at 4-6.) Petitioner must present his claims to the

Supreme Court of California prior to raising them in a habeas petition in this court.

In light of the foregoing, the instant petition is DISMISSED for failure to exhaust state

court remedies. This dismissal is without prejudice to petitioner’s returning to federal court

after exhausting his state court remedies by presenting his claims to the Supreme Court of

California. See Johnson v. Lewis, 929 F.2d 460, 464 (9th Cir. 1991). 

The application to proceed in forma pauperis is GRANTED.

This order terminates Docket Nos. 2 and 4.

The Clerk shall close the file. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: May 19, 2005

 /s/ Maxine M. Chesney 

MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge

Case 3:05-cv-00628-MMC Document 5 Filed 05/19/05 Page 2 of 2