Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_10-cv-00927/USCOURTS-casd-3_10-cv-00927-2/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 \10cv0927 d ism iss SAP.w pd, 72010 -1- 10cv0927

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CARL BURKE, Civil No. 10cv0927-LAB (PCL)

Petitioner, ORDER DISMISSING SECOND

AMENDED PETITION WITHOUT

PREJUDICE AND WITHOUT

LEAVE TO AMEND

v.

TERRI GONZALES, et al.,

Respondents.

On April 23, 2010, Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, submitted a Petition for

a Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, but neither paid the filing fee nor filed

a motion to proceed in forma pauperis. (Doc. No. 1.) On May 6, 2010, this Court dismissed the

Petition because Petitioner had failed to satisfy the filing fee requirement, had failed named a

proper respondent, had failed to state a cognizable federal claim, and had failed to allege

exhaustion of state court remedies. (Doc. No. 2.) Petitioner was notified that in order to have

his case reopened he was required to either pay the filing fee or submit an application to proceed

in forma pauperis and file a First Amended Petition which cured the pleading defects on or

before July 2, 2010. (Id.) 

On May 20, 2010, Petitioner filed a First Amended petition along with an application to

proceed in forma pauperis. (Doc. Nos. 3-4.) By Order dated June 2, 2010, this Court granted

the application to proceed in forma pauperis, and dismissed the First Amended Petition because

Case 3:10-cv-00927-LAB-PCL Document 7 Filed 07/20/10 Page 1 of 3
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 \10cv0927 d ism iss SAP.w pd, 72010 -2- 10cv0927

Petitioner again failed to allege exhaustion of state judicial remedies. Petitioner was notified that

he would be allowed a final opportunity to amend in order to cure this pleading defect no later

than July 2. On July 6, 2010, Petitioner filed a Second Amended Petition. 

FAILURE TO ALLEGE EXHAUSTION OF STATE JUDICIAL REMEDIES

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).

As with his previous Petitions, nowhere in the Second Amended Petition does Petitioner

allege that he raised his claims in the California Supreme Court. Rather, Petitioner indicates that

he has not presented claims one through four to the state supreme court. (See Pet. at 6-9.)

Petitioner was informed in the Court’s previous Orders of dismissal that if he has raised his

claims in the California Supreme Court he must so specify because the burden of proving that

a claim has been exhausted lies with Petitioner. Cartwright v. Cupp, 650 F.2d 1103, 1104 (9th

Cir. 1981).

Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases provides for summary dismissal of a

habeas petition “[i]f it plainly appears from the petition and any attached exhibits that the

petitioner is not entitled to relief in the district court . . .” Rule 4, 28 U.S.C. foll. § 2254. Here,

Case 3:10-cv-00927-LAB-PCL Document 7 Filed 07/20/10 Page 2 of 3
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 \10cv0927 d ism iss SAP.w pd, 72010 -3- 10cv0927

it appears plain from the Second Amended Petition that Petitioner is not presently entitled to

federal habeas relief because he has not alleged exhaustion of state court remedies. 

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Petitioner was advised in the preceding dismissal Order that if he filed a Second

Amended Petition which failed to cure the deficiencies in his petition, he would be given no

further opportunities to amend the present case, but would have to begin again by filing a new

federal habeas petition which will be given a new civil case number. For all the foregoing

reasons, the Court DISMISSES this case without prejudice and without leave to amend. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: July 19, 2010

HONORABLE LARRY ALAN BURNS

United States District Judge

Case 3:10-cv-00927-LAB-PCL Document 7 Filed 07/20/10 Page 3 of 3