Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_07-cv-02927/USCOURTS-cand-4_07-cv-02927-1/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

JASON MULLINS,

Petitioner,

 vs.

BOARD OF PAROLE HEARINGS,

Respondent. /

No. C 07-2927 PJH (PR)

ORDER FOR PETITIONER TO

SHOW CAUSE WHY CASE

SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED

FOR FAILURE TO EXHAUST

This is a habeas corpus case filed pro se by a state prisoner. Because it appeared

from the petition that petitioner might have intended to file in the California Supreme Court

rather than this court, petitioner was ordered to file a statement saying which court was

intended. He has responded, saying that he intended to file here. 

The petition is directed to revocation of petitioner’s parole. Although petitioner has

attached a ruling on his state habeas petition by the California Superior Court for Marin

County, he has checked the “no” box next to a question asking if he has filed any petitions

other than this one. A search of the state appellate courts’ website suggests that he has

had no cases in the California appellate courts. If so, these claims are not exhausted. 

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 available 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). Petitioner here has not done so.

Case 4:07-cv-02927-PJH Document 14 Filed 04/14/10 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 shall show cause within thirty days of the date this order is entered why

this case should not be dismissed for failure to exhaust. If he does not respond, or if he

cannot show that his claims are exhausted, the case will be dismissed. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 14, 2010. 

 PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON

United States District Judge

P:\PRO-SE\PJH\HC.07\MULLINS927.osc-P.wpd

Case 4:07-cv-02927-PJH Document 14 Filed 04/14/10 Page 2 of 2