Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-04323/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-04323-0/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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RONALD E. STEINER, JR.,

Petitioner,

v.

RICHARD J. KIRKLAND, 

warden,

Respondent. /

No. C 06-4323 SI (pr)

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

Ronald E. Steiner, Jr., a prisoner at Pelican Bay State Prison filed this action for a writ

of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 to challenge a disciplinary decision that resulted in a

loss of time credits. 

A prisoner in state custody who wishes to challenge collaterally in federal habeas

proceedings either the fact or length of his confinement 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 claim he

seeks to raise in federal court. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b),(c); Rose v. Lundy, 455 U.S. 509, 515-

16 (1982); Duckworth v. Serrano, 454 U.S. 1, 3 (1981). The exhaustion-of-state-remedies

doctrine reflects a policy of federal-state comity to give the state "'the initial "opportunity to pass

upon and correct" alleged violations of its prisoners' federal rights.'" Picard v. Connor, 404 U.S.

270, 275 (1971) (citations omitted)

Steiner's habeas petition discloses that he did not exhaust state judicial remedies before

filing this action. He attached a May 5, 2006 order from the Del Norte County Superior Court
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

2

denying his petition for writ of habeas corpus, but specifically alleged that he did not seek

review in the California Supreme Court. See Petition, p. 5. Steiner must present his claims to

the California Supreme Court and receive a decision from that court to exhaust his state judicial

remedies. Steiner's exhaustion of state administrative remedies before filing his federal petition

does not satisfy or excuse the requirement that state judicial remedies be exhausted before the

federal petition is filed.

The petition is dismissed because state judicial remedies were not exhausted before it was

filed. See Rose v. Lundy, 455 U.S. at 510. This dismissal is without prejudice to Steiner filing

a new federal petition after he exhausts state court remedies as to each claim contained in his

new petition by presenting those claims to the California Supreme Court and giving that court

a fair opportunity to rule on the merits of his claims. Because this action is being dismissed

today, Steiner cannot file an amended petition in this action but instead must file a new petition;

a new case number will be assigned when he returns with a new petition after exhausting in state

court. The clerk shall close the file.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 18, 2006 ______________________

 SUSAN ILLSTON

United States District Judge