Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-01469/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-01469-1/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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JEROME LEE CROSS,

Petitioner,

v.

WARDEN, WASCO STATE PRISON,

Respondent.

No. 1:15-cv-01469-sko HC

ORDER DISMISSING THE 

PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS 

CORPUS FOR FAILURE TO 

EXHAUST STATE REMEDIES

(Doc. 10)

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

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254,

1 moves for a ninety-day extension of time to amend his petition as 

permitted by the Court’s order dismissing the petition with leave to amend. Petitioner explains 

that he needs the extension because the petition he submitted to the California Supreme Court was 

returned as unsigned, postponing the date on which he can anticipate the Supreme Court 

addressing his state petition. Because Petitioner has not exhausted his state remedies, the Court 

must dismiss the petition.

I. Exhaustion of State Remedies Required

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

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c)(1), Petitioner consented, in writing, to the jurisdiction of a United States Magistrate 

Judge to conduct all further proceedings in this case, including the entry of final judgment.

Case 1:15-cv-01469-SKO Document 11 Filed 12/28/15 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

2

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 (1991); Rose v. Lundy, 455 U.S. 509, 518 (1982); Buffalo v. Sunn, 854 F.2d 1158, 

1163 (9th Cir. 1988).

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. 

Duncan v. Henry, 513 U.S. 364, 365 (1995); Picard v. Connor, 404 U.S. 270, 276 (1971); 

Johnson v. Zenon, 88 F.3d 828, 829 (9th Cir. 1996). A federal court will find that the highest state 

court was given a full and fair opportunity to hear a claim if the petitioner has presented the 

highest state court with the claim's factual and legal basis. Duncan, 513 U.S. at 365; Kenney v. 

Tamayo-Reyes, 504 U.S. 1, 8 (1992). The petitioner must also have specifically informed the 

state court that he was raising a federal constitutional claim. Duncan, 513 U.S. at 365-66; Lyons 

v. Crawford, 232 F.3d 666, 669 (9th Cir. 2000), amended, 247 F.3d 904 (2001); Hiivala v. Wood, 

195 F.3d 1098, 1106 (9th Cir. 1999); Keating v. Hood, 133 F.3d 1240, 1241 (9th Cir. 1998).

When none of a petitioner’s claims has been presented to the highest state court as 

required by the exhaustion doctrine, the Court must dismiss the petition. Raspberry v. Garcia, 

448 F.3d 1150, 1154 (9th Cir. 2006); Jiminez v. Rice 276 F.3d 478, 481 (9th Cir. 2001). The 

authority of a court to hold a mixed petition in abeyance pending exhaustion of the unexhausted 

claims has not been extended to petitions that contain no exhausted claims. Raspberry, 448 F.3d 

at 1154.

Petitioner’s request for an extension of time to submit his petition to the California 

Supreme Court reveals that he has yet not exhausted state remedies as to the claims set forth in 

his petition. Although non-exhaustion of state court remedies has been viewed as an affirmative 

defense, it is petitioner’s burden to prove that state judicial remedies were properly exhausted. 

Case 1:15-cv-01469-SKO Document 11 Filed 12/28/15 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

3

28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(1)(A); Darr v. Burford, 339 U.S. 200, 218-19 (1950), overruled in part on 

other grounds in Fay v. Noia, 372 U.S. 391 (1963); Cartwright v. Cupp, 650 F.2d 1103, 1104 (9th

Cir. 1981). If available state court remedies have not been exhausted as to all claims, a district 

court must dismiss a petition. Rose v. Lundy, 455 U.S. 509, 515-16 (1982).

IV. Certificate of Appealability

A petitioner seeking a writ of habeas corpus has no absolute entitlement to appeal a 

district court's denial of his petition, but may only appeal in certain circumstances. Miller-El v. 

Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 335-36 (2003). The controlling statute in determining whether to issue a 

certificate of appealability is 28 U.S.C. § 2253, which provides:

(a) In a habeas corpus proceeding or a proceeding under section 2255 

before a district judge, the final order shall be subject to review, on 

appeal, by the court of appeals for the circuit in which the proceeding 

is held.

(b) There shall be no right of appeal from a final order in a proceeding 

to test the validity of a warrant to remove to another district or place 

for commitment or trial a person charged with a criminal offense 

against the United States, or to test the validity of such person's 

detention pending removal proceedings.

(c) (1) Unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of 

appealability, an appeal may not be taken to the court of appeals 

from—

(A) the final order in a habeas corpus proceeding in which the 

detention complained of arises out of process issued by a State 

court; or

 (B) the final order in a proceeding under section 2255.

(2) A certificate of appealability may issue under 

paragraph (1) only if the applicant has made a 

substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional 

right.

(3) The certificate of appealability under paragraph (1) 

shall indicate which specific issues or issues satisfy the 

showing required by paragraph (2).

Case 1:15-cv-01469-SKO Document 11 Filed 12/28/15 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

4

If a court denies a habeas petition, the court may only issue a certificate of appealability 

"if jurists of reason could disagree with the district court's resolution of his constitutional claims 

or that jurists could conclude the issues presented are adequate to deserve encouragement to 

proceed further." Miller-El, 537 U.S. at 327; Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). 

Although the petitioner is not required to prove the merits of his case, he must demonstrate 

"something more than the absence of frivolity or the existence of mere good faith on his . . . 

part." Miller-El, 537 U.S. at 338.

Here, the Court finds that reasonable jurists would not find the Court's determination that 

Petitioner is not entitled to federal habeas corpus relief debatable, wrong, or deserving of 

encouragement to proceed further. Petitioner has not made the required substantial showing of 

the denial of a constitutional right. Accordingly, the Court declines to issue a certificate of 

appealability.

V. Conclusion and Recommendation

Petitioner has not exhausted state remedies. Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that the 

petition for writ of habeas corpus be DISMISSED without prejudice. The Court declines to issue 

a certificate of appealability. The Clerk of Court is directed to close the case.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 24, 2015 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:15-cv-01469-SKO Document 11 Filed 12/28/15 Page 4 of 4