Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-05305/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-05305-0/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JAY KRISHAN, 

Petitioner,

 vs.

DERRAL ADAMS, Warden,

Respondent.

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C 06-5305 JSW (PR)

ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH LEAVE

TO AMEND AND INSTRUCTIONS TO

THE CLERK

(Docket No. 3)

INTRODUCTION

Petitioner, a prisoner of the State of California, currently incarcerated at California

State Prison in Corcoran, California, has filed a habeas corpus petition pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 2254 challenging the constitutional validity of his state conviction. Petitioner

has filed a motion seeking to proceed in forma pauperis which is now GRANTED (docket

no. 3). This order dismisses the petition with leave to amend within thirty days.

BACKGROUND

According to the petition, Petitioner was convicted after trial of multiple sex

offenses in Santa Clara County Superior Court and sentenced to a term of 295 years-tolife in prison. Petitioner appealed his conviction to the California Court of Appeal which

denied the appeal in 2005. The Supreme Court of California denied his petition for

review in 2005. Petitioner filed the instant federal habeas petition on August 7, 2006.

Case 3:06-cv-05305-JSW Document 4 Filed 02/09/07 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 2

DISCUSSION

I. Standard of Review

This court may entertain a petition for a writ of habeas corpus “in behalf of a

person in custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court only on the ground that he is

in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.” 28

U.S.C. § 2254(a). 

It shall “award the writ or issue an order directing the respondent to show cause

why the writ should not be granted, unless it appears from the application that the

applicant or person detained is not entitled thereto.” Id. § 2243. Summary dismissal is

appropriate only where the allegations in the petition are vague or conclusory, palpably

incredible, or patently frivolous or false. See Hendricks v. Vasquez, 908 F.2d 490, 491

(9th Cir. 1990) (quoting Blackledge v. Allison, 431 U.S. 63, 75-76 (1977)). 

II. Claims

Petitioner claims that the trial court violated his confrontation rights with regard

to the admission of videotaped preliminary examination testimony of the victim. 

However, it is unclear from the petition whether the claim has been exhausted in the state

courts, as Petitioner has stated in the petition that his appellate counsel did not raise this

claim on appeal and has also noted in the petition that he has not filed any other

applications with regard to this conviction in any court. As such, it appears that the

claim may not be exhausted.

A prisoner in state custody who wishes to challenge either the fact or length of his 

confinement by filing a federal petition for writ of habeas corpus must first 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 issue he seeks to raise in federal court. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b),(c); Granberry v.

Greer, 481 U.S. 129, 133-34 (1987). The petition is ambiguous as to whether he has

raised the claims he wishes to bring in this petition before the California Supreme Court. 

Case 3:06-cv-05305-JSW Document 4 Filed 02/09/07 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 3

He cannot proceed with any federal claim in federal court unless and until he has given

the California Supreme Court a fair opportunity to rule on the merits of such a claim.

CONCLUSION 

For the foregoing reasons and for good cause shown, this action is dismissed with

leave to file an amended petition within thirty days of the date of this order in which

Petitioner presents only claims for violations of his rights under the laws, treaties, or

Constitution of the United States. Each and every such claim must have been presented

to the California Supreme Court before it may be asserted in a federal habeas action. 

The amended petition must contain the caption and civil case number used in this order

and the words AMENDED PETITION on the first page. Failure to file an amended

petition by the deadline will result in dismissal of this action.

It is Petitioner's responsibility to prosecute this case. He must keep the Court

informed of any change of address by filing a separate paper with the clerk headed

“Notice of Change of Address.” He must comply with any orders of the Court within the

time allowed, or ask for an extension of that time. 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). See Martinez v. Johnson, 104 F.3d 769, 772 (5th Cir. 1997) (Rule

41(b) applicable in habeas cases). The Clerk of Court is directed to provide Petitioner

with a copy of this Court’s habeas petition form. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: 02/09/07 JEFFREY S. WHITE

United States District Judge

Case 3:06-cv-05305-JSW Document 4 Filed 02/09/07 Page 3 of 3