Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_06-cv-03624/USCOURTS-cand-5_06-cv-03624-0/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

Order Granting Request for Extension of Time; Granting Motions to Proceed in Forma Pauperis; Order to Show Cause Why

Petition Should Not Be Dismissed for Failure to Exhaust State Remedies 

P:\pro-se\sj.jf\hc.06\Gilmore624ifposcexh 1

NOT FOR CITATION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JAMES PAUL GILMORE, JR., 

Petitioner,

 vs.

JEANNE WOODFORD,

Respondent. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C 06-3624 JF (PR)

ORDER GRANTING REQUEST

FOR EXTENSION OF TIME;

GRANTING MOTIONS TO

PROCEED IN FORMA

PAUPERIS; ORDER TO SHOW

CAUSE WHY PETITION

SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED

FOR FAILURE TO EXHAUST

STATE REMEDIES 

(Docket Nos. 2, 4, 5)

Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed a petition for a writ of habeas

corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging the calculation of his custody credits

pursuant to his parole revocation. Petitioner has filed a request for extension of time to

submit his in forma pauperis application and two motions to proceed in forma pauperis. 

Petitioner has provided documentation of his attempts to exhaust his claim through the

administrative appeal process. However, Petitioner does not state that he presented his

claims to the California Supreme Court prior to filing the instant petition. The Court will

GRANT Petitioner’s request for extension of time (docket no. 4) and GRANT

Petitioner’s motions to proceed in forma pauperis (docket nos. 2, 5). 

**Original filed 2/27/07**

Case 5:06-cv-03624-JF Document 7 Filed 02/27/07 Page 1 of 5
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

Order Granting Request for Extension of Time; Granting Motions to Proceed in Forma Pauperis; Order to Show Cause Why

Petition Should Not Be Dismissed for Failure to Exhaust State Remedies 

P:\pro-se\sj.jf\hc.06\Gilmore624ifposcexh 2

The Court will order Petitioner to show cause why the petition should not be dismissed

without prejudice because he has not exhausted his state court remedies prior to filing the

instant petition. 

STATEMENT

The instant petition was filed on June 8, 2006. Petitioner challenges the California

Parole Board’s authority to extend his term of confinement based upon his parole

revocation and the calculation of his custody credits. Petitioner has provided

documentation of his first level of appeal in the prison administrative appeal process. 

However, Petitioner does not allege that he presented any of his claims to the California

Supreme Court prior to filing this habeas action. See Petition at 3-9. 

DISCUSSION

Prisoners in state custody who wish to challenge collaterally in federal habeas

corpus proceedings either the fact or length of their confinement 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 opportunity to rule on the merits

of each and every claim they seek to raise in federal court. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)-(c); see

also O’Sullivan v Boerckel, 119 S.Ct 1728, 1730 (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 exhaustion requirement

applicable to federal habeas petitions is not satisfied if there is a pending post-conviction

proceeding in state court. See Sherwood v. Tomkins, 716 F.2d 632, 634 (9th Cir. 1983). 

If, for example, an appeal of a state criminal conviction is pending, a would-be federal

habeas petitioner must await the outcome of his appeal before his state remedies are

exhausted, even where the issue raised in the petition has been finally settled in the state

courts. Id. Petitioner cannot present claims to this Court which he has not first raised in

the highest state court available, the California Supreme Court, usually by filing a petition

Case 5:06-cv-03624-JF Document 7 Filed 02/27/07 Page 2 of 5
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

Order Granting Request for Extension of Time; Granting Motions to Proceed in Forma Pauperis; Order to Show Cause Why

Petition Should Not Be Dismissed for Failure to Exhaust State Remedies 

P:\pro-se\sj.jf\hc.06\Gilmore624ifposcexh 3

for review or a state habeas petition.

Here, Petitioner has not alleged that he presented his claims to the state supreme

court prior to filing the instant habeas petition. Accordingly, the Court issues an Order to

Show Cause to Petitioner as to why the petition should not be dismissed without prejudice

to refiling once he has exhausted his claims with the state supreme court. Petitioner shall

file a response within thirty days of the date of this order addressing: (1) whether he has

an appeal, habeas petition or other post-conviction proceeding now pending before the

state court; and (2) whether he has presented the claims in the instant petition to the

California Supreme Court. Failure to file a timely response will result in the Court

dismissing the instant petition without prejudice for failure to exhaust state court

remedies. 

CONCLUSION

1. Petitioner’s request for extension of time to file his in forma pauperis 

application (docket no. 4) is GRANTED.

2. Petitioner’s motions to proceed in forma pauperis (docket nos. 2, 5) are 

GRANTED. 

3. The Court orders Petitioner to show cause why the instant petition 

should not be dismissed without prejudice to refiling once he has exhausted his claims

with the state supreme court. Petitioner shall file a response within thirty days of the

date of this order addressing: (1) whether he has an appeal, habeas petition or other postconviction proceeding now pending before the state court; and (2) whether he has

presented the claims in the instant petition to the California Supreme Court. Failure to

file a timely response will result in the Court dismissing the instant petition without

prejudice for failure to exhaust state court remedies. 

4. It is Petitioner’s responsibility to prosecute this case. Petitioner must keep 

the Court and all parties informed of any change of address by filing a separate paper

captioned “Notice of Change of Address.” 

Case 5:06-cv-03624-JF Document 7 Filed 02/27/07 Page 3 of 5
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

Order Granting Request for Extension of Time; Granting Motions to Proceed in Forma Pauperis; Order to Show Cause Why

Petition Should Not Be Dismissed for Failure to Exhaust State Remedies 

P:\pro-se\sj.jf\hc.06\Gilmore624ifposcexh 4

He must comply with the Court’s orders in a timely fashion. Failure to do so may result

in the dismissal of this action for failure to prosecute pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil

Procedure 41(b). 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: _______________ 

JEREMY FOGEL

United States District Judge

2/23/07

Case 5:06-cv-03624-JF Document 7 Filed 02/27/07 Page 4 of 5
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

Order Granting Request for Extension of Time; Granting Motions to Proceed in Forma Pauperis; Order to Show Cause Why

Petition Should Not Be Dismissed for Failure to Exhaust State Remedies 

P:\pro-se\sj.jf\hc.06\Gilmore624ifposcexh 5

A copy of this ruling was mailed to the following:

James Paul Gilmore, Jr.

P-46444

CA State Prison - Avenal

P.O. Box 9

Avenal, CA 93204 

Case 5:06-cv-03624-JF Document 7 Filed 02/27/07 Page 5 of 5