Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_05-cv-00700/USCOURTS-cand-4_05-cv-00700-0/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

BRENTON DUANE AVERY,

Petitioner,

 v.

SCOTT KERNAN, Facility

Warden, 

Respondent. ____________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C 05-0700 CW (PR)

ORDER OF DISMISSAL AND GRANTING

LEAVE TO PROCEED IN FORMA

PAUPERIS

(Docket nos. 2, 4)

INTRODUCTION

Petitioner Brenton Duane Avery, a prisoner of the State of

California incarcerated at the California State Prison-Sacramento,

has filed a pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant

to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 and an application for in forma pauperis

status. Venue is proper in this judicial district because

Petitioner was convicted and sentenced in Sonoma County Superior

Court. See 28 U.S.C. § 2241(d).

BACKGROUND

According to the allegations in the petition a jury found

Petitioner guilty of robbery, attempted robbery, assault with

intent to commit serious bodily injury, and two sentence

enhancements. On October 16, 2002, the trial court sentenced

Petitioner to sixty years to life in State prison. The California

Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment of conviction in 2003. 

Petitioner did not seek review from the State supreme court or

seek other State post-conviction relief. He filed his federal

habeas corpus petition on February 16, 2005. 

EXHAUSTION

Prisoners in State custody who wish to challenge in federal

habeas proceedings either the fact or length of their confinement

Case 4:05-cv-00700-CW Document 5 Filed 11/09/05 Page 1 of 3
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

are first required to exhaust State judicial remedies 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). If available State

remedies have not been exhausted as to all claims, the district

court must dismiss the petition. Id. at 510; Guizar v. Estelle,

843 F.2d 371, 372 (9th Cir. 1988). A dismissal solely for failure

to exhaust is not a bar to returning to federal court after

exhausting available State remedies. See Trimble v. City of Santa

Rosa, 49 F.3d 583, 586 (9th Cir. 1995). 

In order to exhaust, 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."). However, if it is clear

that the State court would reject a petitioner's attempt to

exhaust State remedies by holding the claim procedurally barred

under State law then the exhaustion requirement is satisfied. See

Castille v. Peoples, 489 U.S. 346, 351 (1989). In that event the

claim is procedurally barred from review in the federal habeas

case as well. See Coleman v. Thompson, 501 U.S. 722, 735 n.l, 750

(1991). But if the State gives a petitioner with a potentially

procedurally defaulted claim a second chance to raise the claim in

the State's high court and he takes advantage of that chance, he

properly exhausts his claim and avoids procedural default. See

Park v. California, 202 F.3d 1146, 1153-54 (9th Cir. 2000)

(petitioner who failed to seek direct review from Supreme Court of

California properly exhausted his claim and avoided procedural

default because Supreme Court of California provided him with

Case 4:05-cv-00700-CW Document 5 Filed 11/09/05 Page 2 of 3
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

3

second chance to present his claim via State habeas).

Because Petitioner's federal habeas petition indicates that

he did not present his claims to the State supreme court for

review, either in a petition for review or in a State petition for

a writ of habeas corpus, his federal petition is unexhausted and

must be DISMISSED. This dismissal is without prejudice to

Petitioner returning to State court to exhaust his State remedies

and then filing a new federal habeas corpus petition. Should he

do so, he is advised to file his new federal habeas corpus

petition as soon as possible after his State court proceedings

have concluded. The Court makes no ruling at this time on the

issue of the timeliness of any future federal petition. 

Leave to proceed in forma pauperis is GRANTED. (Docket nos.

2, 4).

The Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment and close the

file.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: 11/9/05

 

CLAUDIA WILKEN

United States District Judge

Case 4:05-cv-00700-CW Document 5 Filed 11/09/05 Page 3 of 3