Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_09-cv-02016/USCOURTS-casd-3_09-cv-02016-0/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

09cv2016 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JULIO CONTRERAS,

Petitioner,

v.

FERNANDO GONZALEZ, Warden,

Respondent.

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Civil No. 09-2016-BEN(WVG)

NOTICE REGARDING POSSIBLE

DISMISSAL OF PETITION FOR 

WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS FOR

FAILURE TO EXHAUST STATE 

COURT REMEDIES

Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed a

Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Petitioner has not exhausted claim no. 3 in his Petition. (See Pet. at

8-8A). The Court, having preliminarily determined the Petition

contains an unexhausted claim, notifies Petitioner of the possible

dismissal of his Petition. 

The exhaustion requirement is satisfied by providing the

state courts with a “fair opportunity” to rule on Petitioner’s

constitutional claims. Anderson v. Harless, 459 U.S. 4, 6 (1982).

In most instances, a claim is exhausted once it is presented to a

state’s highest court, either on direct appeal or through state

Case 3:09-cv-02016-BEN-WVG Document 21 Filed 06/29/10 Page 1 of 6
 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/

28 U.S.C. § 2254 (b)(1)-(2) states:

(b) (1) An application for a writ of habeas corpus on behalf of a

person in custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court shall

not be granted unless it appears that -

(A) the applicant has exhausted the remedies available in the courts

of the State; or

(B)(i) there is an absence of available State corrective process; or

(ii) circumstances exist that render such process ineffective to

protect the rights of the applicant.

 (2) An application for a writ of habeas corpus may be denied on the

merits, notwithstanding the failure of the applicant to exhaust the

remedies available in the courts of the State.

09cv2016 2

collateral proceedings.1/ See Sandgathe v. Maass, 314 F.3d 371, 376

(9th Cir. 2002). The constitutional claim raised in the federal

proceedings must be the same as that raised in the state proceedings. See id.

Here, in claim no. 3, Petitioner alleges that there was

insufficient evidence to find true gang enhancement allegations

against him. However, Petitioner has not presented that claim to the

California Supreme Court. (Respondent’s Lodgment No. 13). 

1. PETITIONER’S OPTIONS

To avoid the Court dismissing the Petition on its own accord,

Petitioner may choose one of the following options:

i) First Option: Demonstrate Exhaustion

Petitioner may file further papers with this Court to

demonstrate that he has in fact exhausted the claim the Court has

determined is likely unexhausted. If Petitioner chooses this

option, his papers are due no later than August 1, 2010. Respondent

may file a reply by August 15, 2010.

ii) Second Option: Voluntarily Dismiss the Petition

Petitioner may move to voluntarily dismiss his entire federal

petition and return to state court to exhaust his unexhausted claim.

Petitioner may then file a new federal petition containing only

exhausted claims. See Rose v. Lundy, 455 U.S. 509, 510, 520-21

Case 3:09-cv-02016-BEN-WVG Document 21 Filed 06/29/10 Page 2 of 6
 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/

28 U.S.C. § 2244 (d) provides:

(1) A 1-year period of limitation shall apply to an application for

a writ of habeas corpus by a person in custody pursuant to the

judgment of a State court. The limitation period shall run from the

latest of--

(A) the date on which the judgment became final by the

conclusion of direct review or the expiration of the time for

seeking such review;

(B) the date on which the impediment to filing an application

created by State action in violation of the Constitution or laws of

the United States is removed, if the applicant was prevented from

filing by such State action;

(C) the date on which the constitutional right asserted was

initially recognized by the Supreme Court, if the right has been

newly recognized by the Supreme Court and made retroactively

applicable to cases on collateral review; or

(D) the date on which the factual predicate of the claim or

claims presented could have been discovered through the exercise of

due diligence.

(2) The time during which a properly filed application for State

post-conviction or other collateral review with respect to the

pertinent judgement or claim is pending shall not be counted toward

any period of limitation under this subsection.

09cv2016 3

(stating that a petitioner who files a mixed petition may dismiss

his petition to “return[] to state court to exhaust his claims”).

If Petitioner chooses this second option, he must file a pleading

with this Court no later than August 1, 2010. Respondent may file

a reply by August 15, 2010. 

Petitioner is cautioned that any new federal petition must be

filed before expiration of the one-year statute of limitations.

Ordinarily, a petitioner has one year from when his conviction

became final to file his federal petition, unless he can show that

statutory or equitable “tolling” applies. Duncan v. Walker, 533

U.S. 167, 176 (2001); 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d).2/ The statute of limitations does not run while a properly filed state habeas corpus

petition is pending. 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(2); see Nino v. Galaza, 183

F.3d 1003, 1006 (9th Cir. 1999). But see Artuz v. Bennett, 531 U.S.

4, 8 (2000) (holding that “an application is ‘properly filed’ when

its delivery and acceptance [by the appropriate court officer for

placement into the record] are in compliance with the applicable

laws and rules governing filings.”); Bonner v. Carey, 425 F.3d 1145,

Case 3:09-cv-02016-BEN-WVG Document 21 Filed 06/29/10 Page 3 of 6
 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/ 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(2) provides that a claim presented in a second

or successive habeas corpus application under § 2254 shall be

dismissed unless: 

(A) the applicant shows that the claim relies on a new rule of

constitutional law, made retroactive to cases on collateral

review by the Supreme Court, that was previously unavailable;

or (continued)

(B)(i) the factual predicate for the claim could not have been

discovered previously through the exercise of due diligence; and 

(ii) the facts underlying the claim, if proven and viewed in

light of the evidence as a whole, would be sufficient to

establish by clear and convincing evidence that, but for

constitutional error, no reasonable factfinder would have

found the applicant guilty of the underlying offense. 

09cv2016 4

1149 (9th Cir. 2005) (holding that a state application for postconviction relief which is ultimately dismissed as untimely was

neither “properly filed” nor “pending” while it was under consideration by the state court, and therefore does not toll the statute of

limitations), as amended 439 F.3d 993. However, absent some other

basis for tolling, the statute of limitations continues to run while

a federal habeas petition is pending. Duncan, 533 U.S. at 181-82.

iii) Third Option: Formally Abandon Unexhausted Claim

Petitioner may formally abandon his unexhausted claim and

proceed with his exhausted ones. See Rose, 455 U.S. at 510, 520-21

(stating that a petitioner who files a mixed petition may “resubmit[] the habeas petition to present only exhausted claims”). If

Petitioner chooses this third option, he must file a pleading with

this Court no later than August 1, 2010. Respondent may file a

reply by August 15, 2010.

Petitioner is cautioned that once he abandons his unexhausted

claim, he may lose the ability to ever raise it in federal court.

See Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 488 (2000) (stating that a

court’s ruling on the merits of claims presented in a first § 2254

petition renders any later petition successive); see also 28 U.S.C.

§ 2244 (a)-(b).3/

Case 3:09-cv-02016-BEN-WVG Document 21 Filed 06/29/10 Page 4 of 6
 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

09cv2016 5

iv) Fourth Option: File a Motion to Stay the Federal

Proceedings

Petitioner may file a motion to stay this federal proceeding

while he returns to state court to exhaust his unexhausted claim.

There are two methods available to Petitioner, the “stay and

abeyance” procedure and the “withdrawal and abeyance” procedure.

If Petitioner wishes to use the “stay and abeyance” procedure

he should ask the Court to stay his mixed petition while he returns

to state court to exhaust. Under this procedure he must demonstrate

there is an arguably meritorious claim which he wishes to return to

state court to exhaust, that he is diligently pursuing his state

court remedies with respect to that claim, and that good cause

exists for his failure to timely exhaust his state court remedies.

Rhines v. Webber, 544 U.S. 269, 277-78 (2005). 

If Petitioner wishes to use the “withdrawal and abeyance”

procedure, he must voluntarily withdraw his unexhausted claim, ask

the Court to stay the proceedings and hold the fully-exhausted

petition in abeyance while he returns to state court to exhaust, and

then seek permission to amend his petition to include the newly

exhausted claim after exhaustion is complete. King v. Ryan, 564

F.3d 1133 (9th Cir. 2009). Although under this procedure Petitioner

is not required to demonstrate good cause for his failure to timely

exhaust, the newly exhausted claim must be either timely under the

statute of limitations or “relate back” to the claims in the

fully-exhausted petition, that is, they must share a “common core of

operative facts” with the previously exhausted claims. King, 564

F.3d at1143, quoting Mayle v. Felix, 545 U.S. 644. 659 (2005).

If Petitioner chooses this fourth option, he must file a

Case 3:09-cv-02016-BEN-WVG Document 21 Filed 06/29/10 Page 5 of 6
 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

4/ Although the dismissal is “without prejudice,” Petitioner is again

cautioned that any later federal petition may be barred by the

statute of limitations. See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1)-(2); see also

footnote two of this Order.

09cv2016 6

pleading with this Court no later than August 1, 2010. Respondent

may file a reply by August 15, 2010.

2. CONCLUSION

The Court NOTIFIES PETITIONER THAT HE HAS FILED A PETITION

THAT CONTAINS BOTH EXHAUSTED AND UNEXHAUSTED CLAIMS AND IT IS

THEREFORE SUBJECT TO DISMISSAL. If Petitioner fails to respond to

this Order, the Court will recommend to the 

District Judge assigned to this case that the Petition be dismissed

without prejudice.4/ See Rose, 455 U.S. at 522.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: June 29, 2010

 Hon. William V. Gallo

 U.S. Magistrate Judge

Case 3:09-cv-02016-BEN-WVG Document 21 Filed 06/29/10 Page 6 of 6