Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_15-cv-01358/USCOURTS-cand-5_15-cv-01358-0/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)

---

2 FILED 

3 

4 

JUL 0 7 2015 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

10 

11 DAVID BENNETT, 

12 Petitioner, 

13 vs. 

14 VINCENT ADAMS, Warden, 

15 Respondent. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) ___________________________ ) 

16 

No. C 15-1358 LHK (PR) 

ORDER OF DISMISSAL 

17 Petitioner, a California state prisoner proceeding prose, seeks a writ of habeas corpus 

18 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. In the underlying federal petition, petitioner challenges a 2013 

19 criminal judgment against him, and concedes that he has not raised any of the claims in the 

20 California Supreme Court. On May 8, 2015, the court issued an order denying petitioner's 

21 motion to proceed in forma pauperis, directing petitioner to pay the $5.00 filing fee within thirty 

22 days, and ordered petitioner to show cause within thirty days why the petition should not be 

23 dismissed for failure to exhaust state remedies. Petitioner has not filed a response. 

24 As the court previously advised petitioner, prisoners in state custody who wish to 

25 collaterally challenge either the fact or length of their confinement in federal habeas corpus 

26 proceedings are first required to exhaust state judicial remedies, either on direct appeal or 

27 through collateral proceedings, by presenting the highest state court available with a fair 

28 opportunity to rule on the merits of each and every claim the prisoners seek to raise in federal 

Order of Dismissal 

P:\PRO-SE\LHK\HC. 15\Bennett358disexh. wpd 

Case 5:15-cv-01358-LHK Document 6 Filed 07/07/15 Page 1 of 3
court. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)-(c). The exhaustion-of-state-remedies doctrine reflects a policy of 

2 federal-state comity to give the state "the initial 'opportunity to pass upon and correct alleged 

3 violations of its prisoners' federal rights."' Picardv. Connor, 404 U.S. 270,275 (1971) 

4 (citations omitted). The exhaustion requirement is satisfied only if the federal claim has been 

5 "fairly presented" to the state courts. See id.; Peterson v. Lampert, 319 F .3d 1153, 1155-56 (9th 

6 Cir. 2003) (en bane). The state's highest court must be given an opportunity to rule on the 

7 claims even if review is discretionary. See O'Sullivan v. Boerckel, 526 U.S. 838, 845 (1999) 

8 (petitioner must invoke "one complete round of the State's established appellate review 

9 process."). A federal district court must dismiss a federal habeas petition containing any claim 

10 as to which state remedies have not been exhausted. See Rhines v. Webber, 544 U.S. 269, 273 

11 (2005). 

12 Petitioner's petition concedes that he has not presented any of the federal claims 

13 regarding petitioner's 2013 conviction to the California Supreme Court. Thus, it appears that 

14 petitioner has not fairly presented his claims in the underlying federal petition of habeas corpus 

15 to the highest state court. Accordingly, the court DISMISSES this action without prejudice for 

16 failure to exhaust. 

17 In addition, petitioner's motion to proceed in forma pauperis was denied and petitioner 

18 was ordered to pay the $5.00 filing fee within thirty days or face dismissal. Because petitioner 

19 has failed to pay the filing fee within the time stated, the petition is DISMISSED without 

20 prejudice. 

21 The Clerk shall terminate all pending motions and close the case. 

22 The federal rules governing habeas cases brought by state prisoners require a district 

23 court that denies a habeas petition to grant or deny a certificate of appealability ("CO A'') in its 

24 ruling. See Rule ll(a), Rules Governing§ 2254 Cases, 28 U.S.C. foil. § 2254. Petitioner has 

25 not shown "that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the district court was correct in 

26 its procedural ruling." Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). Accordingly, a COA is 

27 DENIED. 

28 Ill 

Order of Dismissal 

P:\PRO-SE\LHK\HC.I5\Bennett358disexh. wpd 2 

Case 5:15-cv-01358-LHK Document 6 Filed 07/07/15 Page 2 of 3
IT IS SO ORDERED. 

2 

3 

DATED: tf{Q /201) 

United 

LUC~~~ States District Judge 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

IO 

II 

I2 

13 

I4 

I5 

I6 

I7 

I8 

I9 

20 

2I 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

Order of Dismissal 

P:\PRO-SE\LHK\HC.J5\Bennett358disexh.wpd 3 

Case 5:15-cv-01358-LHK Document 6 Filed 07/07/15 Page 3 of 3