Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_07-cv-06095/USCOURTS-cand-5_07-cv-06095-0/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 with Leave to Amend

G:\PRO-SE\SJ.Jf\HC.07\Wilson095dwlta.wpd

NOT FOR CITATION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

STEVEN D. WILSON,

Petitioner,

 v.

ROBERT A. HOREL, et al.,

Respondents. /

No. C 07-6095 JF (PR)

ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH LEAVE

TO AMEND; GRANTING LEAVE TO

PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS

(Docket No. 3)

Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, seeks a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to

28 U.S.C. § 2254. In the petition, Petitioner states that he has not exhausted four of the eight

claims in his petition. 

This Court may entertain a petition for writ of habeas corpus "in behalf of a person in

custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court only on the ground that he is in custody in

violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States." 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a);

Rose v. Hodges, 423 U.S. 19, 21 (1975). A district court shall "award the writ or issue an

order directing the respondent to show cause why the writ should not be granted, unless it

appears from the application that the applicant or person detained is not entitled thereto." 28

U.S.C. § 2243.

Case 5:07-cv-06095-JF Document 5 Filed 05/13/08 Page 1 of 4
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 with Leave to Amend

G:\PRO-SE\SJ.Jf\HC.07\Wilson095dwlta.wpd 2

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); Rose v. Lundy, 455

U.S. 509, 515-16 (1982); Duckworth v. Serrano, 454 U.S. 1, 3 (1981); McNeeley v. Arave,

842 F.2d 230, 231 (9th Cir. 1988). 

There are two deficiencies in the instant petition. First, the instant petition contains

both exhausted and unexhausted claims. A federal district court must dismiss such a “mixed”

federal habeas petition, ie. a petition containing any claims as to which state remedies have

not been exhausted under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)-(c). See Rose, 455 U.S. at 522. However,

Petitioner may amend the mixed petition by striking unexhausted claims as an alternative to

suffering dismissal before the Court may dismiss the petition. Jefferson v. Budge, 419 F.3d

1013, 1016 (9th Cir. 2005); Brambles v. Duncan, 412 F.3d 1066, 1069-71 (9th Cir. 2005). 

Alternatively, Petitioner may obtain a stay of the instant petition while he exhausts his

unexhausted claims in state court. District courts have the authority to issue stays of mixed

federal habeas petitions, and the AEDPA does not deprive them of that authority. Rhines v.

Webber, 125 S. Ct. 1528, 1535 (2005). The use of a stay and abeyance is only appropriate,

however, where the district court has first determined that there was good cause for the

Petitioner’s failure to exhaust the claims in state court and that the claims are potentially

meritorious. Id. If Petitioner wishes to obtain a stay, he must file a motion to stay the

petition that includes a showing of good cause for his failure to exhaust his four unexhausted

claims prior to filing the present petition

The second deficiency in the instant petition is that the claims do not assert a violation

of federal law. As indicated above, federal habeas relief is only available on the basis of a

violation of a federal constitutional right or other federal law. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a); Rose,

Case 5:07-cv-06095-JF Document 5 Filed 05/13/08 Page 2 of 4
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 with Leave to Amend

G:\PRO-SE\SJ.Jf\HC.07\Wilson095dwlta.wpd 3

423 U.S. at 21. Accordingly, Petitioner’s claims, which only assert a violation of state law or

an “abuse of discretion,” do not state a cognizable basis for relief. Petitioner will be given

leave to amend the petition to assert a violation of federal law. Petitioner is cautioned that

the federal basis for any claim asserted in an amended petition must have been presented to

the California Supreme Court in order to satisfy the exhaustion requirement for federal

habeas petitions.

CONCLUSION

In light of the foregoing, the Court hereby orders as follows:

1. The petition is hereby DISMISSED WITH LEAVE TO AMEND. Within 30

days of the date this order is filed, Petitioner may file an amended petition that includes only

his exhausted claims, and that strikes all of the unexhausted claims. The amended petition

must also set forth a violation of a federal constitutional right or other federal law with

respect to each claim, and any such violation of federal law must have been presented to the

California Supreme Court in order for the claim to be properly raised in the amended

petition. The amended petition must be on this Court’s form for habeas petitions, it must

include the caption and civil case number used in this order, No. C 07-6095 JF (PR), as well

as the words AMENDED PETITION on the first page, and Petitioner may not incorporate

material from the original petition by reference. 

Failure to file an amended petition in conformity with this order shall result in

the dismissal of this action without prejudice to Petitioner’s later filing a new petition

after he has finished exhausting his claims in state court.

2. If Petitioner files an amended petition in conformity with this order, and there

are additional claims he wishes to pursue that have not been exhausted, Petitioner may file,

at the same time as he files the amended petition, a motion to stay the instant petition

while he exhausts his unexhausted in the state courts. Such a motion must be accompanied

by a showing of good cause why the unexhausted claims were not exhausted prior to filing

the present petition, and a showing that the unexhausted claims potentially have merit.

Case 5:07-cv-06095-JF Document 5 Filed 05/13/08 Page 3 of 4
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 with Leave to Amend

G:\PRO-SE\SJ.Jf\HC.07\Wilson095dwlta.wpd 4

3. The application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis is GRANTED.

This order terminates docket number 3.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: _______________ ___________________________________

JEREMY FOGEL

United States District Judge

5/8/08

Case 5:07-cv-06095-JF Document 5 Filed 05/13/08 Page 4 of 4