Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-01469/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-01469-0/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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JEROME LEE CROSS,

Petitioner,

v.

WARDEN, WASCO STATE PRISON,

Respondent.

Case No. 1:15-CV-01469-SKO HC

ORDER DISMISSING PETITION FOR WRIT OF 

HABEAS CORPUS WITH LEAVE TO AMEND

SCREENING ORDER

On September 28, 2015, Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed a petition for 

writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254.1 Petitioner seeks to pursue a claim dismissed 

as unexhausted from his prior petition in this Court. See Cross v. Kings County Superior Court

(E.D. Cal.) (No. 1:14-cv-00862-MJS HC) at Doc. 21. Although the determination of the 

California Court of Appeals has been appended to the petition, which asserts that the claim has 

been exhausted, the petition fails to document the decision of the California Supreme Court in 

any way.

 

1

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c)(1), Petitioner has 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 7 Filed 10/28/15 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

I. Preliminary Screening

Rule 4 of the Rules Governing § 2254 Cases requires the Court to conduct a preliminary 

review of each petition for writ of habeas corpus. The Court must dismiss a petition "[i]f it 

plainly appears from the petition . . . that the petitioner is not entitled to relief." Rule 4 of the 

Rules Governing 2254 Cases; see also Hendricks v. Vasquez, 908 F.2d 490, 491 (9th Cir. 1990). 

A petition for habeas corpus should not be dismissed without leave to amend unless it appears 

that no tenable claim for relief can be pleaded were such leave to be granted. Jarvis v. Nelson, 

440 F.2d 13, 14 (9th Cir. 1971).

II. Exhaustion of State Remedies

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). 

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). In California, the highest state court is the California 

Supreme Court. 

The petitioner must also have specifically informed the state court that he was raising a 

Case 1:15-cv-01469-SKO Document 7 Filed 10/28/15 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

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).

Although the petition documents the determination of the California Court of Appeals, it 

fails to disclose the date of the California Supreme Court decision and does not include a copy of 

the Supreme Court decision. Accordingly, the Court will dismiss the petition with leave to amend 

to permit Petitioner to add the date of the California Supreme Court decision to the petition and to 

append a copy of that decision to the petition.

III. Conclusion and Order

Accordingly, with regard solely to the claim of ineffective assistance of counsel brought 

forth in this petition, the Court hereby ORDERS:

1. The petition for writ of habeas corpus is DISMISSED with 

leave to amend to document exhaustion of state remedies before the 

California Supreme Court.

2. The Clerk of Court shall send Petitioner a copy of this order 

and a form for Petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 for Writ of Habeas 

Corpus by a Person in State Custody.

3. Within 30 days of service of this order, Petitioner shall file 

an amended petition disclosing the date of the California Supreme 

Court decision regarding the claim set forth in this petition and 

appending a copy of the California Supreme Court decision or 

order. Petitioner shall sign the petition under penalty of perjury.

4. If Petitioner fails to file an amended petition within 30 days 

from the date of service of this order, this action will be dismissed 

without further notice for failure to comply with a court order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 27, 2015 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:15-cv-01469-SKO Document 7 Filed 10/28/15 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

Case 1:15-cv-01469-SKO Document 7 Filed 10/28/15 Page 4 of 4