Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-02810/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-02810-0/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)

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JONATHAN C. TERRY,

Petitioner,

 v.

WILLIAM L. MUNIZ, Warden,

Respondent. /

No. C 15-2810 MEJ (PR)

ORDER OF DISMISSAL; GRANTING

LEAVE TO PROCEED IN FORMA

PAUPERIS 

(Docket No. 2)

Jonathan Terry, an inmate at Salinas Valley State Prison, filed this pro se action for a

writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 to challenge a conviction from the Sonoma

County Superior Court. His petition is now before the court for review pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§ 2243 and Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. 

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

A district court considering an application for a writ of habeas corpus 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.” 28 U.S.C. § 2243. 

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 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). If available state

remedies have not been exhausted as to all claims, the district court must dismiss the petition. 

Case 3:15-cv-02810-MEJ Document 3 Filed 07/01/15 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

2

Duckworth v. Serrano, 454 U.S. 1, 3-5 (1981). Before he may challenge either the fact or

length of his confinement in a habeas petition in this Court, petitioner must present to the

California Supreme Court any claims he wishes to raise in this court. See Rose v. Lundy,

455 U.S. 509, 522 (1982) (holding every claim raised in federal habeas petition must be

exhausted). If available state remedies have not been exhausted as to all claims, the district

court must dismiss the petition. See id., 455 U.S. at 510; Guizar v. Estelle, 843 F.2d 371,

372 (9th Cir. 1988). 

Mr. Terry never filed a petition for review or a petition for writ of habeas corpus in the

California Supreme Court. He therefore never fairly presented to that court any of his claims

that he now wishes this court to consider. He has not exhausted state court remedies as to

any of the claims in his federal petition. The court cannot stay an action where the petition is

fully unexhausted. See Rose v. Lundy, 455 U.S. at 510. 

Accordingly, this action must be dismissed. This dismissal is without prejudice to Mr.

Terry filing a new petition after he exhausts state court remedies as to each claim contained

in his new petition. Because this action is being dismissed, Mr. Terry cannot file an amended

petition in this action. Instead, he must file a new petition and a new case number will be

assigned it when he returns after exhausting in state court. Mr. Terry is urged to act promptly

to present his claims to state court and then promptly return to this court to file any new

action to avoid being barred by the one-year statute of limitations for federal habeas actions

in 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d). 

Petitioner’s in forma pauperis application is GRANTED. (Docket # 2.)

The Clerk shall enter judgment and close the file.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: 

Maria-Elena James

United States Magistrate Judge

JULY 2, 2015

Case 3:15-cv-02810-MEJ Document 3 Filed 07/01/15 Page 2 of 2