Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-03044/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-03044-0/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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CHARLES FORDJOUR,

Petitioner,

v.

ROBERT L. AYERS, et al.,

 Respondents.

___________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C 07-3044 MMC (PR)

ORDER OF DISMISSAL; GRANTING

LEAVE TO PROCEED IN FORMA

PAUPERIS

(Docket No. 2)

On June 12, 2007, petitioner, a California prisoner proceeding pro se, filed the abovetitled petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, challenging both his

2004 state court conviction and his 2007 revocation of parole. He has applied for leave to

proceed in forma pauperis.

In March 2004, in San Mateo County Superior Court, petitioner was convicted of

fraud under California Penal Code § 532(a), and sentenced to a term of three years in state

prison. Following his release on parole, he was found by the California Board of Prison

Hearings (“BPH”), on February 21, 2007, to be in violation thereof and was returned to

prison for a term of one year and placed on parole for one additional year. Petitioner states

he appealed his 2004 conviction and sentence to the California Court of Appeal, which

reversed in part and affirmed in part, and that a subsequent petition for direct review to the

California Supreme Court was denied. (See Pet. at 3; see also at 4-5.) He further states that

he filed an “appeal/post-conviction relief” in the Santa Clara County Superior Court in 2004,

which was denied. (See id. at 4.) Finally, he states that at the time he filed the instant federal

Case 3:07-cv-03044-MMC Document 4 Filed 06/20/07 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

2

habeas petition, he had a petition, appeal, or other post-conviction proceeding pending in

both the Court of Appeal and the Santa Clara County Superior Court. (See id. at 5.)

This Court may entertain a petition 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.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a);

Rose v. Hodges, 423 U.S. 19, 21 (1975). 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 only where the allegations in the

petition are vague, conclusory, palpably incredible, or patently frivolous or false. See

Hendricks v. Vasquez, 908 F.2d 490, 491 (9th Cir. 1990) (citing Blackledge v. Allison, 431

U.S. 63, 75-76 (1977)). 

The exhaustion requirement applicable to federal habeas petitions is not satisfied if

there is a pending post-conviction proceeding in state court. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)-(c);

Sherwood v. Tomkins, 716 F.2d 632, 634 (9th Cir. 1983). If a post-conviction challenge to a

criminal conviction is pending in state court, a potential federal habeas petitioner must await

the outcome of that challenge before his state remedies are considered exhausted. See id.

This rule applies irrespective of whether the issue raised in the pending state petition is

included in the federal petition, for the reason that a pending state court challenge may result

in a reversal of the petitioner's conviction, thereby mooting the federal petition. See id.

(citations omitted).

As petitioner has a petition, appeal or other post-conviction proceeding pending in the

California Court of Appeal and Santa Clara County Superior Court, the instant petition for a

writ of habeas corpus is hereby DISMISSED, without prejudice to petitioner’s refiling his

claims after all state court post-conviction challenges to petitioner’s conviction have been

completed and all claims petitioner wishes to raise in federal court have been exhausted in

accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)-(c). See Rose v. Lundy, 455 U.S. 509, 522 (1982)

(holding every claim raised in federal habeas petition must be exhausted).

Case 3:07-cv-03044-MMC Document 4 Filed 06/20/07 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

3

In light of petitioner’s lack of funds, the application to proceed in forma pauperis is

hereby GRANTED.

This order terminates Docket No. 2. 

The Clerk shall close the file. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: June 20, 2007

____________________________

MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge 

Case 3:07-cv-03044-MMC Document 4 Filed 06/20/07 Page 3 of 3