Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_08-cv-00360/USCOURTS-cand-3_08-cv-00360-0/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

In re 

RAMIRO AREVALLOS SERVIN.

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C 08-0360 CRB (PR)

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

Alejandra Arevallos has filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus under

28 U.S.C. § 2254 on behalf of her father, Ramiro Arevallos Servin. On August 4,

2005, Ramiro was convicted of sale/transportation/distribution of a controlled

substance in Napa County superior court and sentenced to three years in state

prison. He was recently deported to Mexico.

It does not appear that Alejandra may file a petition on behalf of her father

simply because it is inconvenient for him to do so from Mexico. Cf. Coalition of

Clergy, Lawyers and Professors v. Bush, 310 F.3d 1153, 1161 (9th Cir. 2002)

(next-friend standing probable for detainees from war in Afghanistan who were

being held in Guantanamo Bay without access to lawyers or federal courts). But

even if she could, and if Ramiro could be considered to be in state custody still,

the petition must be dismissed.

Case 3:08-cv-00360-CRB Document 3 Filed 01/28/08 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 2

A person in state custody who wishes to challenge collaterally in federal

habeas corpus proceedings either the fact or length of his confinement is 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

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

federal court. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)-(c). Ramiro has not done so. He has not

presented the Supreme Court of California with an opportunity to consider and

rule on his claims. See O’Sullivan v. Boerckel, 526 U.S. 838, 845 (1999)

(state’s highest court must be given opportunity to rule on claims even if review

is discretionary); Larche v. Simons, 53 F.3d 1068, 1071-72 (9th Cir. 1995)

(Supreme Court of California must be given at least one opportunity to review

state prisoners' federal claims). 

The petition for a writ of habeas corpus is DISMISSED without prejudice

to refiling after state judicial remedies are exhausted. Ramiro must be "in

custody" at the time the petition is filed. 28 U.S.C. §§ 2241(c), 2254(a); Carafas

v. LaVallee, 391 U.S. 234, 238 (1968). A petitioner who files a habeas petition

after he has fully served his sentence and who is not subject to court supervision

is not "in custody" for the purposes of this court's subject matter jurisdiction and

his petition must be dismissed. See De Long v. Hennessey, 912 F.2d 1144, 1146

(9th Cir. 1990). 

The clerk shall terminate all pending motions as moot and close the file. 

SO ORDERED.

DATED: Jan. 28, 2008 

CHARLES R. BREYER

United States District Judge

G:\PRO-SE\CRB\HC.08\Servin, R2.or1.wpd

Case 3:08-cv-00360-CRB Document 3 Filed 01/28/08 Page 2 of 2