Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_14-cv-00569/USCOURTS-casd-3_14-cv-00569-0/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

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DARREN LEE PATTON, JR, Civil No. 14-0569 BEN (BLM)

Petitioner,

NOTICE REGARDING

POSSIBLE FAILURE TO

EXHAUST AND ONE-YEAR

STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS

v.

JEFFREY BEARD, Secretary,

Respondent.

Petitioner, a state prisoner, has filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant

to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. THIS NOTICE PROVIDES IMPORTANT INFORMATION RELATING

TO PETITIONS AND IS ISSUED IN EVERY CASE REGARDLESS OF WHETHER THE

PETITIONER ALLEGES FULL EXHAUSTION OF STATE JUDICIAL REMEDIES.

REQUIREMENT THAT PETITIONER EXHAUST STATE JUDICIAL

REMEDIES

Generally, applicationsfor writs of habeas corpusthat contain unexhausted claims

must be dismissed. See Rose v. Lundy, 455 U.S. 509, 522 (1982). However, federal

courts have the discretion to deny a habeas application on the merits notwithstanding a

petitioner’s failure to fully exhaust state judicial remedies. See 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254(b)(2)

(West 2006); Liegakos v. Cooke, 106 F.3d 1381, 1388 (7th Cir. 1997). To exhaust state

judicial remedies, a California state prisoner must present the California Supreme Court

with a fair opportunity to rule on the merits of every issue raised in his or her federal

C:\Users\lc1major.CASD\AppData\Local\Temp\notes591296\14cv0569-Exhaust.wpd, 31814 -1- 14cv0569

Case 3:14-cv-00569-BEN-BLM Document 3 Filed 03/18/14 Page 1 of 4
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

habeas petition. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b), (c); Granberry v. Greer, 481 U.S. 129, 133-34

(1987). The petitioner must have raised the very same federal claims brought in the

federal petition before the state supreme court. See Duncan v. Henry, 513 U.S. 364, 365-

66 (1995). For example, “[i]f a habeas petitioner wishes to claim that an evidentiary

ruling at a state court trial denied him the due process of law guaranteed by the

Fourteenth Amendment, he must say so, not only in federal court, but in state court.” Id.

at 366.

ONE-YEAR STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS

Further, the Court cautions Petitioner that a one-year period of limitation applies

to a petition for a writ of habeas corpus by a person in custody pursuant to the judgment

of a State court. The limitation period begins to run on the latest of:

(A) the date on which the judgment became final by the

conclusion of direct review or the expiration of the time for

seeking such review;

(B) the date on which the impediment to filing an

application created by State action in violation of the

Constitution or laws of the United States is removed, if the

applicant was prevented from filing by such State action;

(C) the date on which the constitutional right asserted

wasinitially recognized by the Supreme Court, if the right has

been newly recognized by the Supreme Court and made

retroactively applicable to cases on collateral review; or

(D) the date on which the factual predicate of the claim

or claims presented could have been discovered through the

exercise of due diligence.

28 U.S.C.A. § 2244(d)(1)(A)-(D) (West 2006). If the federal petition is filed after the

statute of limitations has run, the petition will be summarily dismissed.

The statute of limitations does not run while a properly filed state habeas corpus

petition is pending. 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(2); see Nino v. Galaza, 183 F.3d 1003, 1006

(9th Cir. 1999). But see Artuz v. Bennett, 531 U.S. 4, 8 (2000) (holding that “an

application is‘properly filed’ when its delivery and acceptance [by the appropriate court

officer for placement into the record] are in compliance with the applicable laws and

C:\Users\lc1major.CASD\AppData\Local\Temp\notes591296\14cv0569-Exhaust.wpd, 31814 -2- 14cv0569

Case 3:14-cv-00569-BEN-BLM Document 3 Filed 03/18/14 Page 2 of 4
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

rules governing filings.”). However, the filing of a federal habeas petition does not toll

the statute of limitations. Duncan v. Walker, 533 U.S. 167, 181-82 (2001).

CONCLUSION

This Court has not yet determined whether or not all of Petitioner’s claims have

been exhausted. That determination will take place later in the proceedings. However,

Petitioner should consider that if state court remedies have not been exhausted, “the

clock may be ticking” on his one-year statute of limitations, and/or that the one-year

period may have already expired. If a petitioner waits until this Court determines

whether all claims contained in a petition have been exhausted, it may be too late to

exhaust. Therefore, if a petitioner knows that one or more claims have not been

exhausted, the petitioner should consider the options with respect to exhausting those

claims. Those options include:

(1)filing a requestfor voluntary dismissal of unexhausted claims and

proceeding in the current federal action with only the exhausted claims (If

Petitioner chooses this option, his abandoned unexhausted claims may be

forever barred from federal court habeas review.); or

(2) filing a request for dismissal without prejudice of the current

federal action and going to state court to exhaust all unexhausted claims

(Petitioner should consider whether all of his federal claims will be barred

by the one-year statute of limitations before choosing this option.).

This Notice is not providing legal advice. It merely lists two of the options that

may be available to petitioners who file unexhausted claims in federal court. The

decision on how to proceed is solely and exclusively up to Petitioner.

///

///

///

///

///

C:\Users\lc1major.CASD\AppData\Local\Temp\notes591296\14cv0569-Exhaust.wpd, 31814 -3- 14cv0569

Case 3:14-cv-00569-BEN-BLM Document 3 Filed 03/18/14 Page 3 of 4
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

IF PETITIONER IS CERTAIN HIS FEDERAL PETITION CONTAINS ONLY

EXHAUSTED CLAIMS, HE NEED NOT TAKE ANY FURTHER ACTION.

PETITIONER IS SO NOTIFIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: March 18, 2014

BARBARA L. MAJOR

United States Magistrate Judge

C:\Users\lc1major.CASD\AppData\Local\Temp\notes591296\14cv0569-Exhaust.wpd, 31814 -4- 14cv0569

Case 3:14-cv-00569-BEN-BLM Document 3 Filed 03/18/14 Page 4 of 4