Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_06-cv-03354/USCOURTS-cand-5_06-cv-03354-0/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\Mendez354oscpnd 1

NOT FOR CITATION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ARTHUR E. MENDEZ, 

Petitioner,

 vs.

JEANNE WOODFORD,

Respondent. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C 06-3354 JF (PR)

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

WHY PETITION SHOULD

NOT BE DISMISSED FOR

FAILURE TO EXHAUST

STATE REMEDIES 

Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed a petition for a writ of habeas

corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Petitioner alleges in the petition that he has a

pending proceeding in the Santa Clara Superior Court. The Court issues an Order to

Show Cause to Petitioner as to why the petition should not be dismissed without prejudice

because he has not exhausted his state court remedies. 

STATEMENT

The instant petition was filed on May 22, 2006. Petitioner challenges his 2000

criminal conviction in Santa Clara Superior Court. Petitioner alleges that he presented his

claims to the state appellate court and the state supreme court in 2003. See Petition at 3-

5. Petitioner also indicates that a post-conviction proceeding is currently pending in the

Santa Clara Superior Court. See Petition at 5. 

**Original filed 6/7/06**

Case 5:06-cv-03354-JF Document 3 Filed 06/07/06 Page 1 of 4
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\Mendez354oscpnd 2

DISCUSSION

Prisoners in state custody who wish to challenge collaterally in federal habeas

corpus proceedings either the fact or length of their confinement are first required to

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

also O’Sullivan v Boerckel, 119 S.Ct 1728, 1730 (1999) (state’s highest court must be

given opportunity to rule on claims even if review is discretionary); Larche v Simons, 53

F.3d 1068, 1071-72 (9th Cir. 1995) (Supreme Court of California must be given at least

one opportunity to review state prisoners’ federal claims). The exhaustion requirement

applicable to federal habeas petitions is not satisfied if there is a pending post-conviction

proceeding in state court. See Sherwood v. Tomkins, 716 F.2d 632, 634 (9th Cir. 1983). 

If, for example, an appeal of a state criminal conviction is pending, a would-be federal

habeas petitioner must await the outcome of his appeal before his state remedies are

exhausted, even where the issue raised in the petition has been finally settled in the state

courts. Id. 

Here, the petition states that there is a pending appeal, habeas petition, or postconviction state court proceeding. See Pet. at 5. Accordingly, the Court issues an Order

to Show Cause to Petitioner as to why the petition should not be dismissed without

prejudice to refiling once he exhausts his pending state court action. Petitioner shall file a

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

habeas petition, appeal, or other post-conviction proceeding now pending before the state

court; and (2) whether the instant petition challenges the same conviction at issue in his

pending state case. 

\\\

\\\

\\\

\\\

Case 5:06-cv-03354-JF Document 3 Filed 06/07/06 Page 2 of 4
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\Mendez354oscpnd 3

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

6/7/06

Case 5:06-cv-03354-JF Document 3 Filed 06/07/06 Page 3 of 4
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\Mendez354oscpnd 4

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

Arthur E. Mendez

T-21071

CSP -Los Angeles County 

44750 60th Street West

Lancaster, CA 93536

Case 5:06-cv-03354-JF Document 3 Filed 06/07/06 Page 4 of 4