Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-00845/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-00845-1/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

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DAVID WILLIAM DINGLE,

Petitioner,

v.

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF 

CALIFORNIA,

Respondents.

No. 2:15-cv-0845 MCE CKD P

ORDER

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

corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. He also requests leave to proceed in forma pauperis. 

Examination of the in forma pauperis application reveals that petitioner is unable to afford the 

costs of suit. Accordingly, the application to proceed in forma pauperis will be granted. See 28 

U.S.C. § 1915(a).

The exhaustion of state court remedies is a prerequisite to the granting of a petition for 

writ of habeas corpus. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(1). A petitioner satisfies the exhaustion requirement 

by providing the highest state court with a full and fair opportunity to consider all claims before 

presenting them to the federal court. Picard v. Connor, 404 U.S. 270, 276 (1971); Middleton v. 

Cupp, 768 F.2d 1083, 1086 (9th Cir. 1985), cert. denied, 478 U.S. 1021 (1986). The United 

States Supreme Court has held that a federal district court may not entertain a petition for habeas 

Case 2:15-cv-00845-MCE-CKD Document 12 Filed 08/13/15 Page 1 of 2
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

corpus unless the petitioner has exhausted state remedies with respect to each of the claims raised. 

Rose v. Lundy, 455 U.S. 509 (1982). Petitioner has failed to exhaust state court remedies with 

respect to some of the claims presented in his petition. 

Petitioner has two options. Within thirty days: (1) petitioner may file an amended habeas 

application omitting all claims that petitioner has failed to exhaust state court remedies; or (2) file 

a request to stay this action pending exhaustion of state court remedies with respect to the 

unexhausted claims. Petitioner is informed that to be entitled to a stay, he must show good cause 

for his failure to exhaust earlier, and that the unexhausted claims are potentially meritorious. 

Rhines v. Weber, 544 U.S. 269, 125 S. Ct. 1528, 1535 (2005). Petitioner’s failure to comply with 

one of these alternatives within thirty days will result in a recommendation that this action be 

dismissed.

In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Petitioner’s motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 11) is granted;

and

2. Petitioner is granted thirty days from the date of this order to file an amended petition 

raising only exhausted claims or a motion to stay the original petition consistent with the 

requirements identified above. Failure to comply with this order will result in a recommendation 

that this action be dismissed without prejudice.

Dated: August 13, 2015

1

ding0845.103

_____________________________________

CAROLYN K. DELANEY

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:15-cv-00845-MCE-CKD Document 12 Filed 08/13/15 Page 2 of 2