Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_07-cv-02245/USCOURTS-cand-4_07-cv-02245-0/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

1 In California, the supreme court, intermediate courts of appeal, and superior courts

all have original habeas corpus jurisdiction. See Nino v. Galaza, 183 F.3d 1003, 1006 n.2 (9th

Cir. 1999). Although a superior court order denying habeas corpus relief is non-appealable,

a state prisoner may file a new habeas corpus petition in the court of appeals. See id. If the

court of appeals denies relief, the petitioner may seek review in the California Supreme Court

by way of a petition for review, or may instead file an original habeas petition in the supreme

court. See id. at n.3.

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

NOT FOR CITATION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ANDRE MONCREASE,

Petitioner,

 vs.

STATE OF CALIFORNIA,

Respondent. /

No. C 07-2245 PJH (PR)

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

Petitioner, a California state inmate, has filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus. 

An application for a federal writ of habeas corpus filed by a prisoner who is in state custody

pursuant to a judgment of a state court may not be granted unless the prisoner has first

exhausted state judicial remedies, either by way of a direct appeal or in collateral

proceedings, by presenting the highest state court available1

 with a fair opportunity to rule

on the merits of each and every issue he or she seeks to raise in federal court. See 28

U.S.C. § 2254(b),(c); Granberry v. Greer, 481 U.S. 129, 133-34 (1987). Petitioner has the

burden of pleading exhaustion in his habeas petition. See Cartwright v. Cupp, 650 F.2d

1103, 1104 (9th Cir. 1981).

In his petition petitioner states that he did not appeal his probation revocation and

that he has not filed any other petitions, applications or motions regarding it in any court. It

is thus clear that he has not presented his claim to the highest state court available, the

Case 4:07-cv-02245-PJH Document 5 Filed 06/25/07 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 Petitioner should carefully note the possible application of the statute of limitations

contained in 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d). Petitions filed by prisoners challenging non-capital state

convictions or sentences must be filed within one year of the latest of the dates on which: (1)

the judgment became final after the conclusion of direct review or the time passed for seeking

direct review; (2) an impediment to filing an application created by unconstitutional state action

was removed, if such action prevented petitioner from filing; (3) the constitutional right asserted

was recognized by the Supreme Court, if the right was newly recognized by the Supreme

Court and made retroactive to cases on collateral review; or (4) the factual predicate of the

claim could have been discovered through the exercise of due diligence. 28 U.S.C. §

2244(d)(1). Time during which a properly filed application for collateral review, for instance a

state habeas petition, is pending is excluded from the one-year time limit. See id. § 2244(d)(2).

The time a federal petition, such as this one, is pending is not excluded. See Duncan v.

Walker, 121 S. Ct. 2120, 2129 (2001).

2

Supreme Court of California. 

Because it is clear from the face of the petition that petitioner has not exhausted, this

case is DISMISSED without prejudice to filing a new federal petition after available state

judicial remedies are exhausted.2

The clerk shall close the file.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 25, 2007. 

 PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON

United States District Judge

G:\PRO-SE\PJH\HC.07\MONCREASE245.DSM-EXH

Case 4:07-cv-02245-PJH Document 5 Filed 06/25/07 Page 2 of 2