Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-05207/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-05207-0/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ROBIN S. MARTIN, 

Petitioner,

 vs.

ROBERT HOREL, Warden, 

Respondent.

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C 07-5207 JSW (PR)

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

INTRODUCTION

Petitioner, a prisoner of the State of California, currently incarcerated at Pelican

Bay State Prison, has filed a habeas corpus petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254

challenging his continued confinement in prison beyond the expiration of his sentence. 

Plaintiff filed an amended petition on October 26, 2007, which supercedes the original

petition. This order directs Respondent to show cause why the amended petition should

not be granted.

BACKGROUND

According to the amended petition, Petitioner was convicted in Los Angeles County

Superior Court of attempted robbery of a peace officer, and sentenced on August January

20, 1997, to a term of 11 years in state prison. No parole term was imposed at that time. 

His sentence expired on September 18, 2007. On July 6, 2007, Petitioner’s release on

parole was revoked because he refused to sign parole papers. 

DISCUSSION

I Standard of Review

This court may entertain a petition for a writ of habeas corpus “in behalf of a person

Case 3:07-cv-05207-JSW Document 3 Filed 04/01/08 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

1

The Court further notes that Petitioner signed the original

petition on August 13, 2007, before the alleged expiration of his

sentence, and only several weeks after the July 6, 2007 decision

by the Board to revoke his release on parole. Under these

circumstances, Petitioner did not have sufficient time to fairly

2

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). 

It 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.” Id. § 2243. 

II Legal Claims

The petition raises the following ground for relief: (1) the imposition of a parole

term by the California parole board violates his right to due process; (2) the imposition of

a parole term violates a state created liberty interest protected by due process; and (3) the

imposition of a parole term violates the Ex Post Facto Clause of the constitution. 

Liberally construed, it does not appear from the face of the petition that Petitioner is not

entitled to relief on his claims. 

III. Exhaustion

A prisoner in state custody who wishes to challenge either the fact or length of his 

confinement by filing a federal petition for writ of habeas corpus must first exhaust state

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

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

every issue he seeks to raise in federal court. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b),(c); Granberry v.

Greer, 481 U.S. 129, 133-34 (1987). 

Petitioner states that he attempted to exhaust the claims in the instant petition by

raising them in administrative appeals to the California Board of Prison Terms and the

Director of the California Department of Corrections.1

 Such efforts do not satisfy the

Case 3:07-cv-05207-JSW Document 3 Filed 04/01/08 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

present his claims to the highest state court before filing the

instant petition.

3

exhaustion requirement for federal habeas corpus petitions; Petitioner must present each

and every claim he wishes to raise herein to the highest state court before it may be

considered by the federal court. As Petitioner has not presented any of his claims to the

highest state court, he has not exhausted his state court remedies. As such, the petition

must be dismissed. See Rose v. Lundy, 455 U.S. 509, 510 (1982), Raspberry v. Garcia, 

448 F.3d 1150, 1154 (9th Cir. 2006) (declining to extend the rule in Rhines v. Webber, 125

S. Ct. 1528, 1535 (2005) to completely unexhausted petitions and finding that the district

court must dismiss such a petition based on Jimenez v. Rice, 276 F.3d 478, 481 (9th Cir.

2001)). A dismissal solely for failure to exhaust is not a bar to Petitioner’s returning to

federal court after exhausting available state remedies. See Trimble v. City of Santa Rosa,

49 F.3d 583, 586 (9th Cir. 1995). 

CONCLUSION 

For the foregoing reasons, this petition is DISMISSED without prejudice to

Petitioner’s filing a new federal habeas petition once he has exhausted state remedies by

presenting his claims to the highest state court. The Clerk shall enter judgment and close

the file. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: April 1, 2008 JEFFREY S. WHITE

United States District Judge

Case 3:07-cv-05207-JSW Document 3 Filed 04/01/08 Page 3 of 3