Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_17-cv-06769/USCOURTS-cand-3_17-cv-06769-0/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 

United States District Court 

Northern District of California 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

MAURICIO REYES HERNANDEZ, AR7908, 

Petitioner, 

v. 

ROSEMARY NDOH, Warden, 

Respondent. 

Case No. 17-cv-06769-CRB (PR) 

ORDER GRANTING MOTION 

TO DISMISS 

(ECF No. 13) 

Petitioner, a state prisoner at Avenal State Prison (ASP), filed a pro se petition for a writ of 

habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging a conviction from Santa Clara County Superior 

Court. Per order filed on February 13, 2018, the court found that the two claims in the petition – 

(1) ineffective assistance of trial counsel in failing to investigate material witnesses and evidence, 

and (2) improper exclusion of impeachment evidence – appeared cognizable under § 2254 and 

ordered respondent to show cause why a writ of habeas corpus should not be granted. Respondent 

instead moved to dismiss the petition for failure to exhaust state judicial remedies as to both 

claims. In response, petitioner filed a motion for leave to amend. But because the motion did not 

set forth a proposed amendment the court denied it without prejudice and instructed petitioner, by 

no later than May 18, 2018, to “set forth his proposed amendment and explain how the 

amendment addresses the pending motion to dismiss for failure to exhausts all claims for relief.” 

Apr. 18, 2018 Order (ECF No. 15) at 1. Petitioner never responded. 

Respondent argues that the petition must be dismissed because petitioner did not exhaust 

state judicial remedies as to claim (1). The court agrees. The record shows that petitioner 

presented claim (1) to the Supreme Court of California in a petition for a writ of habeas corpus. 

But the state high court denied the petition on November 21, 2017 as follows: “The petition for 

writ of habeas corpus is denied. (See People v. Duvall (1995) 9 Cal.4th 464, 474 [a petition for 

writ of habeas corpus must include copies of reasonable available documentary evidence]).” Mtn. 

Case 3:17-cv-06769-CRB Document 17 Filed 07/30/18 Page 1 of 3
United States District Court 

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 

to D

Ca

her

cur

als

to I

cur

of C

as t

one

Bu

the

cla

onc

Olv

to (

the

exh

mix

Da

 

1

Pe

cau

pot

Dismiss (EC

lifornia to in

re. See King

red in a rene

o Kim v. Vi

In re Swain, 

red in renew

California in

Respon

to all claims

e containing

ut when faced

e option of ei

aims, or of di

ce all claims

vera v. Giurb

Within 

(1) withdraw

e entire mixe

hausted.1 Fa

xed petition 

IT IS S

ated: July 30,

 

etitioner may

use for his fa

tentially mer

CF No. 13) E

ndicate that a

g v. Roe, 340

wed state pe

llalobos, 799

34 Cal. 2d 3

wed petition).

n order to cu

ndent’s motio

s is GRANTE

 both exhaus

d with a mix

ither withdra

ismissing the

s are exhaust

bino, 371 F.

28 days of t

w his unexha

ed petition an

ailure to resp

without prej

SO ORDER

, 2018 

 

y be able to o

ailure to exh

ritorious. Se

Ex. D at 1. P

a claim was 

0 F.3d 821, 8

etition, state 

9 F.2d 1317,

300, 304 (19

. Petitioner m

ure his earlier

on to dismis

ED. See Ro

sted and une

xed petition, 

awing his un

e entire mixe

ted. See Jeff

3d 569, 573 

this order, pe

austed claim 

nd return to 

pond within t

judice to fili

RED. 

 

obtain a stay

aust the unex

ee Rhines v. 

2

People v. Du

not alleged w

823 (9th Cir

judicial rem

, 1319 (9th C

949), for failu

must file a n

r deficiency 

s (ECF No. 

ose v. Lundy

exhausted cla

as is the cas

nexhausted c

ed petition a

ferson v. Bu

(9th Cir. 20

etitioner mus

and proceed

federal cour

the designate

ing a new fed

___

CH

Un

y of these pro

xhausted cla

Webber, 54

uvall may be 

with “suffici

r. 2003). Bu

medies are no

Cir. 1986) (d

ure to allege

new state hab

and exhaust

13) for failu

y, 455 U.S. 5

aims – must 

se here, the d

claims and pr

and returning

udge, 419 F.3

004). 

st inform the

d only on his

rt with a new

ed time will 

deral petitio

__________

HARLES R. 

nited States D

oceedings if

aim in state c

44 U.S. 269, 

cited by the

ient particul

ut because th

ot considered

denial of stat

e with suffic

beas petition

t claim (1). 

ure to exhaus

509, 522 (198

t be dismisse

district court

roceeding on

g to federal c

3d 1013, 101

e court in wr

s one exhaus

w petition on

result in the

on containing

___________

BREYER 

District Judg

f he can show

court, and th

277 (2005).

e Supreme C

arity,” as wa

is deficiency

d exhausted.

te petition w

ient particul

n in the Supr

st state judic

82) (mixed p

ed without pr

t must give t

nly on his ex

court with a 

16 (9th Cir. 2

riting whethe

sted claim, o

ce all claims

e dismissal o

g only exhau

__________

ge 

w that there w

hat the claim

Court of 

as the case 

y can be 

 See id.; see

with citation 

larity can be 

reme Court 

ial remedies

petition – 

rejudice). 

the petitioner

xhausted 

new petition

2005); 

er he wishes

or (2) dismis

s are 

of the entire 

usted claims.

________ 

was good 

m is 

e

s

r

n

s

s

Case 3:17-cv-06769-CRB Document 17 Filed 07/30/18 Page 2 of 3
United States District Court 

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 

M

R

Dis

sai

dep

rec

Ma

Av

PO

Av

Da

MAURICIO R

v. 

OSEMARY

I, the un

strict Court, 

That on

d copy(ies) i

positing said

ceptacle loca

auricio Reye

venal State P

O Box 903 

venal, CA 93

ated: July 30,

REYES HER

Plaintiff, 

Y NDOH, 

Defendant.

ndersigned, 

Northern Di

n July 30, 20

in a postage 

d envelope in

ated in the Cl

es Hernandez

Prison 

3204 

, 2018 

UNITED

NORTHER

RNANDEZ,

.

hereby certi

istrict of Cal

018, I SERVE

paid envelo

n the U.S. M

lerk's office.

z ID: AR 79

3

D STATES D

RN DISTRIC

,

fy that I am 

lifornia. 

ED a true an

ope addressed

Mail, or by pla

.

08

Su

Cl

By

La

H

DISTRICT C

CT OF CALI

Case No. 3

CERTIFIC

an employe

nd correct co

d to the pers

acing said co

usan Y. Soon

lerk, United

y:_________

ashanda Sco

Honorable CH

COURT 

IFORNIA 

3:17-cv-0676

CATE OF S

ee in the Offi

opy(ies) of th

son(s) herein

opy(ies) into

ng 

d States Distr

___________

ott, Deputy C

HARLES R. 

69-CRB 

SERVICE 

ice of the Cl

he attached, 

nafter listed, 

o an inter-off

rict Court 

_______ 

Clerk to the 

 BREYER 

erk, U.S. 

by placing 

by 

ffice delivery

Case 3:17-cv-06769-CRB Document 17 Filed 07/30/18 Page 3 of 3