Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_16-cv-01194/USCOURTS-caed-1_16-cv-01194-1/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

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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Petitioner has filed a First Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus following dismissal of 

the original petition for failure to demonstrate exhaustion of state remedies. The Court advised 

Petitioner of the deficiency and granted him an opportunity to demonstrate full exhaustion. He has 

failed to do so; therefore, the petition will be DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for failure to 

exhaust state remedies.1 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

A. Procedural Grounds for Summary Dismissal

Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases provides in pertinent part:

If it plainly appears from the petition and any attached exhibits that the petitioner is not entitled 

to relief in the district court, the judge must dismiss the petition and direct the clerk to notify 

 

1

Petitioner consented to the jurisdiction of the Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) on August 19, 2016.

GREGORY LEONARD GONZALES,

 Petitioner,

v.

MARGARETTE MIMS,

Respondent.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 1:16-cv-01194-JLT (HC)

ORDER DISMISSING FIRST AMENDED 

PETITION WITHOUT PREJUDICE FOR 

FAILURE TO EXHAUST STATE REMEDIES

ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT TO 

ENTER JUDGMENT AND CLOSE THE CASE

Case 1:16-cv-01194-JLT Document 8 Filed 09/12/16 Page 1 of 3
2

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

the petitioner.

The Advisory Committee Notes to Rule 8 indicate that the court may dismiss a petition for writ of 

habeas corpus, either on its own motion under Rule 4, pursuant to the respondent’s motion to dismiss, 

or after an answer to the petition has been filed. A petition for habeas corpus should not be dismissed 

without leave to amend unless it appears that no tenable claim for relief can be pleaded were such 

leave granted. Jarvis v. Nelson, 440 F.2d 13, 14 (9th Cir. 1971). 

B. Exhaustion of Remedies

A petitioner who is in state custody and wishes to collaterally challenge his conviction by a 

petition for writ of habeas corpus must exhaust state judicial remedies. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(1). The 

exhaustion doctrine is based on comity to the state court and gives the state court the initial 

opportunity to correct the state's alleged constitutional deprivations. Coleman v. Thompson, 501 U.S. 

722, 731 (1991); Rose v. Lundy, 455 U.S. 509, 518 (1982); Buffalo v. Sunn, 854 F.2d 1158, 1163 (9th

Cir. 1988). 

A petitioner can satisfy the exhaustion requirement by providing the highest state court with a 

full and fair opportunity to consider each claim before presenting it to the federal court. Duncan v. 

Henry, 513 U.S. 364, 365 (1995); Picard v. Connor, 404 U.S. 270, 276 (1971); Johnson v. Zenon, 88 

F.3d 828, 829 (9th Cir. 1996). In this instance, the highest state court would be the California Supreme 

Court. A federal court will find that the highest state court was given a full and fair opportunity to 

hear a claim if the petitioner has presented the highest state court with the claim's factual and legal 

basis. Duncan, 513 U.S. at 365 (legal basis); Kenney v. Tamayo-Reyes, 504 U.S. 1 (1992) (factual 

basis). 

Additionally, the petitioner must have specifically told the state court that he was raising a 

federal constitutional claim. Duncan, 513 U.S. at 365-66; Lyons v. Crawford, 232 F.3d 666, 669 (9th 

Cir.2000), amended, 247 F.3d 904 (2001); Hiivala v. Wood, 195 F.3d 1098, 1106 (9th Cir.1999); 

Keating v. Hood, 133 F.3d 1240, 1241 (9th Cir.1998). 

Here, Petitioner is in the custody of the Fresno County Jail on charges of failing to register as a 

sex offender after having had his parole from an earlier conviction revoked. (Doc. 7). Petitioner 

contends that the constitutional prohibition on double jeopardy has been violated because he has been 

Case 1:16-cv-01194-JLT Document 8 Filed 09/12/16 Page 2 of 3
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

tried and sentenced twice for stealing the same vehicle. (Doc. 7, p. 5). 

In the Court’s prior order, the Court noted Petitioner’s allegation that he had attempted to seek 

relief in the Fresno County Superior Court; however, Petitioner failed to allege that he had presented 

his claims to the California Supreme Court. The Court advised Petitioner of the requirement of full 

exhaustion and Petitioner was granted an opportunity to show that he has in fact raised his claims to 

the California Supreme Court. In his First Amended Petition, Petitioner again alleges only that he has 

filed a habeas petition in the Fresno County Superior Court. He does not state that he has pursued his 

state remedies beyond the superior court. Petitioner was forewarned that failure to establish that he 

has presented his claims to the California Supreme Court would result in dismissal of the petition.

ORDER

For the foregoing reasons, the ORDERS:

1. The petition for writ of habeas corpus is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE; and

2. The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to enter judgment and terminate the case.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 9, 2016 /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:16-cv-01194-JLT Document 8 Filed 09/12/16 Page 3 of 3