Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_10-cv-01893/USCOURTS-cand-3_10-cv-01893-0/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ROBERT WHITE,

Petitioner, 

 v.

ALAMEDA COUNTY JAIL,

Respondent. /

No. C 10-1893 WHA (PR) 

ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITHOUT

PREJUDICE FOR FAILURE TO

EXHAUST

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

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 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). 

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.

Case 3:10-cv-01893-WHA Document 2 Filed 05/28/10 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

1

 Petitioner is cautioned that under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act

of 1996, effective April 24, 1996, petitions filed by prisoners challenging non-capital state

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

the judgment became final after the conclusion of direct review or expiration of the time 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 United States Supreme Court, if the right

was newly recognized 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

(such as a state habeas petition) is pending is excluded from the one-year time limit. Id. §

2244(d)(2).

2

Petitioner has the burden of pleading exhaustion in his habeas petition. See Cartwright

v. Cupp, 650 F.2d 1103, 1104 (9th Cir. 1981). Petitioner has not done so. In fact, he indicates

in his petition that he has not presented his claims to the California Supreme Court (Pet. 3). 

Petitioner has not presented any exceptional circumstances to excuse his failure to exhaust. See

Granberry, 481 U.S. at 134. The petition is therefore DISMISSED without prejudice to refiling

after available state judicial remedies are exhausted.1

The clerk shall close the file.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 27 , 2010. 

WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

G:\PRO-SE\WHA\HC.10\WHITE1893.DSM-EXH.wpd

Case 3:10-cv-01893-WHA Document 2 Filed 05/28/10 Page 2 of 2