Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_09-cv-00694/USCOURTS-caed-1_09-cv-00694-0/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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ROBERTO JOSE LEBRON,

Petitioner,

v.

JAMES A. YATES,

Respondent.

 /

1:09-cv-00694-SMS (HC)

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE REGARDING

EXHAUSTION OF STATE COURT

REMEDIES

[Doc. 1]

Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas corpus

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 

Petitioner filed the instant petition on April 20, 2009. (Court Doc. 1.) Petitioner raises

the following four claims: (1) there was insufficient evidence to support his carjacking

conviction; (2) the auto theft charge does not fall within the ambit of California Penal Code

section 215; (3) failure to advise of Miranda rights in violation of the Fourth Amendment; and

(4) trial court erred by imposing aggravated term without a jury finding. (Petition, at 5-6.) 

Petitioner indicates that he filed a direct appeal to the California Court of Appeal and

California Supreme Court raising Claims One and Four only. (Petition, at 3, Exhibit F, Petition

for Review.) Thus, it appears that two of Petitioner’s claim have not been exhausted. 

A petitioner who is in state custody and wishes to collaterally challenge his conviction by

a petition for writ of habeas corpus must exhaust state judicial remedies. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(1). 

1

Case 1:09-cv-00694-SMS Document 8 Filed 04/21/10 Page 1 of 3
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

The exhaustion doctrine is based on comity to the state court and gives the state court the initial

opportunity to correct the state's alleged constitutional deprivations. Coleman v. Thompson, 501

U.S. 722, 731, 111 S.Ct. 2546, 2554-55 (1991); Rose v. Lundy, 455 U.S. 509, 518, 102 S.Ct.

1198, 1203 (1982); Buffalo v. Sunn, 854 F.2d 1158, 1163 (9 Cir. 1988). th

A petitioner can satisfy the exhaustion requirement by providing the highest state court

with a full and fair opportunity to consider each claim before presenting it to the federal court. 

Picard v. Connor, 404 U.S. 270, 276, 92 S.Ct. 509, 512 (1971); Johnson v. Zenon, 88 F.3d 828,

829 (9 Cir. 1996). A federal court will find that the highest state court was given a full and fair th

opportunity to hear a claim if the petitioner has presented the highest state court with the claim's

factual and legal basis. Duncan v. Henry, 513 U.S. 364, 365, 115 S.Ct. 887, 888 (1995) (legal

basis); Kenney v. Tamayo-Reyes, 504 U.S. 1, 112 S.Ct. 1715, 1719 (1992) (factual basis).

Additionally, the petitioner must have specifically told the state court that he was raising a

federal constitutional claim. Duncan, 513 U.S. at 365-66, 115 S.Ct. at 888; Keating v. Hood, 133

F.3d 1240, 1241 (9 Cir.1998). For example, if a petitioner wishes to claim that the trial court

th

violated his due process rights “he must say so, not only in federal court but in state court.”

Duncan, 513 U.S. at 366, 115 S.Ct. at 888.

The instant petition contains both exhausted and unexhausted claims, and the Court must

dismiss a mixed petition without prejudice to give Petitioner an opportunity to exhaust the claim

if he can do so. See Rose, 455 U.S. at 521-22. However, Petitioner will be provided with an

opportunity to withdraw the unexhausted claims and go forward with the exhausted claims. 

Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Within thirty (30) days from the date of service of this order, Petitioner shall show

cause as to what claims, if any, were presented to the state’s highest court.

2. Failure to comply with this order may result in the action be dismissed for failure

to comply with a court order. Local Rule 11-110.

 \

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 21, 2010 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder 

2

Case 1:09-cv-00694-SMS Document 8 Filed 04/21/10 Page 2 of 3
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

icido3 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

3

Case 1:09-cv-00694-SMS Document 8 Filed 04/21/10 Page 3 of 3