Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_06-cv-01214/USCOURTS-cand-5_06-cv-01214-0/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

Order to Show Cause Why Petition Should Not Be Dismissed for Failure to Exhaust State Remedies

P:\pro-se\sj.jf\hc.06\Grant214oscexh

NOT FOR CITATION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JESSE GRANT, III,

Petitioner,

 vs.

MRS. BUCHANAN, et. al., 

Respondents.

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C 06-1214 JF (PR)

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

WHY PETITION SHOULD

NOT BE DISMISSED FOR

FAILURE TO EXHAUST

STATE REMEDIES

Petitioner, proceeding pro se, filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant

to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 and a motion to proceed in forma pauperis. The Court orders

Petitioner to show cause why the petition should not be dismissed without prejudice

because he has not exhausted his state court remedies. 

STATEMENT

Petitioner challenges the legality of his conviction for Cal. Health and Safety Code

§ 11350, claiming that his public defender “tricked” him into taking a deal when he was

actually innocent. Petitioner states that he did not present any of his claims to the state

court in a post-conviction appeal, habeas petition, etc., prior to filing the instant federal

petition. 

DISCUSSION

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

**Original filed 5/1/06**

Case 5:06-cv-01214-JF Document 4 Filed 05/01/06 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

Order to Show Cause Why Petition Should Not Be Dismissed for Failure to Exhaust State Remedies

P:\pro-se\sj.jf\hc.06\Grant214oscexh 2

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

Rose v. Lundy, 455 U.S. 509, 515-16 (1982); Duckworth v. Serrano, 454 U.S. 1, 3

(1981); McNeeley v. Arave, 842 F.2d 230, 231 (9th Cir. 1988). The state’s highest court

must be given an opportunity to rule on the claims even if review is discretionary. See

O’Sullivan v. Boerckel, 526 U.S. 838, 845 (1999) (petitioner must invoke “one complete

round of the State’s established appellate review process.”).

The exhaustion-of-state-remedies doctrine reflects a policy of federal-state comity

to give the state “the initial ‘opportunity to pass upon and correct alleged violations of its

prisoners' federal rights.’” Picard v. Connor, 404 U.S. 270, 275 (1971) (citations omitted).

The exhaustion requirement is satisfied only if the federal claim (1) has been “fairly

presented” to the state courts, see id.; Crotts v. Smith, 73 F.3d 861, 865 (9th Cir. 1996); or

(2) no state remedy remains available, see Johnson v. Zenon, 88 F.3d 828, 829 (9th Cir.

1996).

Upon review of the petition, Petitioner states that he did not present his claims to

any state court prior to filing the instant petition. Accordingly, Petitioner shall file a

response within thirty days of the date of this order addressing: (1) whether he has

presented his claims to the state court in a state habeas petition, appeal, or other court

proceeding; (2) whether there is a pending proceeding in the state court concerning his

claims; and (3) whether he wishes to continue to prosecute this petition. Failure to file a

timely response will result in the court dismissing the instant petition without prejudice

for failure to exhaust state court remedies. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: 

JEREMY FOGEL

United States District Judge

4/27/06

Case 5:06-cv-01214-JF Document 4 Filed 05/01/06 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

Order to Show Cause Why Petition Should Not Be Dismissed for Failure to Exhaust State Remedies

P:\pro-se\sj.jf\hc.06\Grant214oscexh 3

This is to certify that a copy of this ruling was mailed to the following:

Jesse Grant, III

AQY-327

Santa Rita Jail

5325 Broder Blvd.

Dublin, CA 94568

Case 5:06-cv-01214-JF Document 4 Filed 05/01/06 Page 3 of 3