Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_14-cv-04475/USCOURTS-cand-5_14-cv-04475-1/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)

---

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

Case No. C 14-4475 PSG (PR)

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

PAUL HERNANDEZ,

Petitioner,

 v.

SANTA CLARA COUNTY,

Respondent. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No. C 14-4475 PSG (PR)

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

Paul Hernandez, a California state prisoner proceeding pro se, seeks a writ of habeas

corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. In the underlying federal petition, Hernandez challenged

the criminal judgment against him, and conceded that he had not raised any claims in the

California Supreme Court. On January 22, 2015, the court issued an order to Hernandez to show

cause why the petition should not be dismissed for failure to exhaust state remedies. Although

Hernandez was warned that the failure to file a timely response would result in the dismissal of

this case, Hernandez did not file a response.

As the court previously advised Hernandez, prisoners in state custody who wish to

collaterally challenge either the fact or length of their confinement in federal habeas corpus

proceedings 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

Case 5:14-cv-04475-PSG Document 5 Filed 05/08/15 Page 1 of 2
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

 See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)-(c). 

2

 See Picard v. Connor, 404 U.S. 270, 275 (1971) (citations omitted); Peterson v.

Lampert, 319 F.3d 1153, 1155-56 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc). 

3

 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.”). 

4

 See Rhines v. Webber, 544 U.S. 269, 273 (2005).

5

 See Rule 11(a), Rules Governing § 2254 Cases, 28 U.S.C. foll. § 2254. 

6

 Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). 

Case No. C 14-4475 PSG (PR)

ORDER OF DISMISSAL 2

opportunity to rule on the merits of each and every claim the prisoners seek to raise in federal

court.1 The exhaustion requirement is satisfied only if the federal claim has been “fairly

presented” to the state courts.2 The state’s highest court must be given an opportunity to rule on

the claims even if review is discretionary.3

 A federal district court must dismiss a federal habeas

petition containing any claim as to which state remedies have not been exhausted.4

According to Hernandez’s petition, it appears that Hernandez has been convicted of

criminal charges, but Hernandez had not filed a direct appeal or pursued any other state

proceeding challenging his criminal convictions except for one state habeas petition filed in the

Superior Court. Thus, it appears that Hernandez has not fairly presented his claims in the

underlying federal petition of habeas corpus to the highest state court. Accordingly, the court

DISMISSES this action without prejudice for failure to exhaust.

The federal rules governing habeas cases brought by state prisoners require a district

court that denies a habeas petition to grant or deny a certificate of appealability (“COA”) in its

ruling.5 Hernandez has not shown “that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the

petition states a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional right.”6 Accordingly, a COA is

DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: _______________ 

PAUL S. GREWAL

United States Magistrate Judge

5/8/2015

Case 5:14-cv-04475-PSG Document 5 Filed 05/08/15 Page 2 of 2