Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_15-cv-01506/USCOURTS-cand-5_15-cv-01506-0/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)

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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 of Dismissal

P:\PRO-SE\EJD\HC.15\01506Slape_dism (exh).wpd

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DARRELL RAVAN SLAPE,

Petitioner,

 v.

TIM PEREZ, Warden, California

Institute for Men, 

Respondent. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C 15-01506 EJD (PR)

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

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

habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, challenging his state conviction.

BACKGROUND

Petitioner was found guilty by a jury in Humboldt County Superior Court of

assault, sexual battery, and a forcible act of sexual penetration (Cal. Penal Code §§

242, 243.4(c), and 289(d)(4)). (Pet. at 2.) In August 2014, Petitioner was sentenced

to seven years in state prison. (Id. at 1.) Petitioner appealed his verdict, and the

state appellate court affirmed his conviction. (Id. at 3.) Petitioner admits that he did

not seek review in the California Supreme Court. (Id.) Petitioner also admits that he

Case 5:15-cv-01506-EJD Document 2 Filed 05/21/15 Page 1 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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 of Dismissal

P:\PRO-SE\EJD\HC.15\01506Slape_dism (exh).wpd 2

did not file any other petition, application or motion in any court. (Id.) Petitioner

also admits that the grounds raised in the instant habeas petition are different from

the grounds raised in his appeal.

DISCUSSION

Prisoners in state custody who wish to challenge collaterally in federal habeas

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. See 28

U.S.C. § 2254(b)-(c). The exhaustion requirement is satisfied only if the federal

claim (1) has been “fairly presented” to the state courts, Picard v. Connor, 404 U.S.

270, 275 (1971) (citations omitted); and (2) no state remedy remains available, see

Johnson v. Zenon, 88 F.3d 828, 829 (9th Cir. 1996). If available state remedies have

not been exhausted as to all claims, the district court must dismiss the petition. 

Duckworth v. Serrano, 454 U.S. 1, 3-5 (1981). Before a petitioner may challenge

either the fact or length of his confinement in a habeas petition in this Court, he must

present to the California Supreme Court any claims he wishes to raise in this court. 

See Rose v. Lundy, 455 U.S. 509, 522 (1982) (holding every claim raised in federal

habeas petition must be exhausted). If available state remedies have not been

exhausted as to all claims, the district court must dismiss the petition. See id., 455

U.S. at 510; Guizar v. Estelle, 843 F.2d 371, 372 (9th Cir. 1988). 

The petition contains four claims, all of which Petitioner admits were not presented

to the state high court. (Compl. at 3 and 5-6.) Petitioner claims that his failure to

exhaust is due to ineffective assistance of appellate counsel. However, appellate

counsel’s failure to raise these claims on appeal does not excuse Petitioner from

presenting the claims in the instant petition to the California Supreme Court.

Accordingly, this petition must be DISMISSED for failure to exhaust all claims. 

Case 5:15-cv-01506-EJD Document 2 Filed 05/21/15 Page 2 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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 of Dismissal

P:\PRO-SE\EJD\HC.15\01506Slape_dism (exh).wpd 3

CONCLUSION 

The instant petition is DISMISSED for failure to exhaust state court

remedies. See Rose, 455 U.S. at 510. This dismissal is without prejudice to

Petitioner’s returning to federal court after exhausting his state court remedies. 

DATED: 

EDWARD J. DAVILA

United States District Judge 

5/20/2015

Case 5:15-cv-01506-EJD Document 2 Filed 05/21/15 Page 3 of 3