Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_15-cv-00327/USCOURTS-cand-5_15-cv-00327-0/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)

---

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 

FILED 

APR DB ~OfB 

SUSAN Y. SOONG 

CLERK, U.S. DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

SAN JOSE 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

OSCAR SHELDON, ) No. C 15-0327 LHK (PR) 

) 

Petitioner, ) ORDER OF DISMISSAL 

) 

v. ) 

) 

MARION FEATHER, ) 

) 

Respondent. ) 

) 

Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding prose, filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Respondent filed a motion to dismiss for failure to exhaust. On 

November 23, 2015, the court granted respondent's motion to dismiss because petitioner's 

petition was not fully exhausted. The court directed petitioner to choose one of three options: 

( 1) dismiss the unexhausted claim and go forward in this action with only the exhausted claims; 

(2) dismiss this action and return to state court to exhaust all of his claims before returning to 

federal court to present all of his claims in a new petition; or (3) move for a stay of these 

proceedings while he exhausts his state court remedies for the unexhausted claim. 

The court ordered petitioner to respo·nd within thirty days, or face dismissal of the entire 

case. More than thirty days have passed, and petitioner has not responded to the court's order. 

Accordingly, petitioner's case is DISMISSED without prejudice. The clerk shall terminate any 

Order of Dismissal 

P:\PRO-SE\LHK\HC.I5\Sheldon327 disexh. wpd 

Case 5:15-cv-00327-LHK Document 13 Filed 04/08/16 Page 1 of 2
pending motions and close the file. 

2 The federal rules governing habeas cases brought by state prisoners require a district 

3 court that denies a habeas petition to grant or deny a certificate of appealability ("CO A'') in its 

4 ruling. See Rule 11(a), Rules Governing§ 2254 Cases, 28 U.S.C. foil.§ 2254. Petitioner has 

5 not shown ''that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the district court was correct in 

6 its procedural ruling." Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). Accordingly, a COA is 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: 4(7/'W'" 

Order of Dismissal 

P:\PRO-SE\LHK\HC.l5\Sheldon327 disexh. wpd 

LU~I+~ United States District Judge 

2 

Case 5:15-cv-00327-LHK Document 13 Filed 04/08/16 Page 2 of 2