Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_06-cv-05626/USCOURTS-cand-5_06-cv-05626-0/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 Denying 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\White626ifposcexh 1

NOT FOR CITATION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LARRY L. WHITE, 

Petitioner,

 vs.

MICHAEL HENNESSEY, Sheriff, 

Respondent. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C 06-5626 JF (PR)

ORDER DENYING 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)

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

corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 and two motions to proceed in forma pauperis. 

Petitioner’s trust account statement shows that Petitioner had $700.00 in deposits in the

preceding six months and an average monthly balance of $200.00. This is more than

sufficient to pay the $5.00 filing fee. The Court will DENY Petitioner’s motions to

proceed in forma pauperis (docket nos. 2, 4). However, before the Court orders Petitioner

to pay the filing fee, 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. 

\\\ 

**Original filed 3/1/07**

Case 5:06-cv-05626-JF Document 5 Filed 03/01/07 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 Denying 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\White626ifposcexh 2

STATEMENT

The instant petition was filed on September 14, 2006. Petitioner challenges his

prosecution for kidnaping, rape, assault and false imprisonment in San Francisco Superior

Court. Petitioner states that he was arraigned on these charges on April 11, 2006. 

Petitioner alleges violations of his right to due process and the statute of limitations

because the crime allegedly occurred in 1998. However, Petitioner does not allege that

the underlying state court proceeding has concluded, nor that he presented any of his

claims to the California Supreme Court prior to filing this habeas action. See Petition at

6-7. 

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

for review or a state habeas petition.

Case 5:06-cv-05626-JF Document 5 Filed 03/01/07 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 Denying 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\White626ifposcexh 3

Here, it appears that Petitioner’s underlying state criminal proceeding is currently

pending. Additionally, 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 his underlying state criminal proceeding has concluded and 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 his state criminal proceeding, at issue in the instant case, is

currently pending; (2) whether he has an appeal, habeas petition or other post-conviction

proceeding now pending before the state court; and (3) 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 motions to proceed in forma pauperis (docket nos. 2, 4) are 

DENIED. 

2. 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 his state criminal proceeding, at issue in the

instant case, is currently pending; (2) whether he has an appeal, habeas petition or other

post-conviction proceeding now pending before the state court; and (3) 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. 

3. 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

Case 5:06-cv-05626-JF Document 5 Filed 03/01/07 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 Denying 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\White626ifposcexh 4

captioned “Notice of Change of Address.” 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

3/1/07

Case 5:06-cv-05626-JF Document 5 Filed 03/01/07 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 Denying 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\White626ifposcexh 5

A copy of this ruling was mailed to the following:

Larry L. White 

# 2214748/ 3A-19

P.O. Box 67

San Bruno, CA 94066

Case 5:06-cv-05626-JF Document 5 Filed 03/01/07 Page 5 of 5