Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_08-cv-01150/USCOURTS-cand-3_08-cv-01150-0/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

1

 In California, the supreme court, intermediate courts of appeal, and superior courts

all have original habeas corpus jurisdiction. See Nino v. Galaza, 183 F.3d 1003, 1006 n.2

(9th Cir. 1999). Although a superior court order denying habeas corpus relief is nonappealable, a state prisoner may file a new habeas corpus petition in the court of appeals. 

See id. If the court of appeals denies relief, the petitioner may seek review in the California

Supreme Court by way of a petition for review, or may instead file an original habeas

petition in the supreme court. See id. at n.3.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ANTOWVINE R. POWERS,

Petitioner, 

 v.

ROBERT L. AYERS, Warden,

Respondent. /

No. C 08-1150 WHA (PR) 

ORDER DISMISSING WITHOUT

PREJUDICE FOR FAILURE TO

EXHAUST 

Petitioner, a California state inmate, has filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. An application for a federal writ of habeas corpus filed by a

prisoner who is in state custody pursuant to a judgment of a state court may not be granted

unless the prisoner has first exhausted state judicial remedies, either by way of a direct appeal

or in collateral proceedings, by presenting the highest state court available1

 with a fair

opportunity to rule on the merits of each and every issue he or she seeks to raise in federal

court. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b),(c); Granberry v. Greer, 481 U.S. 129, 133-34 (1987). 

Petitioner has the burden of pleading exhaustion in his habeas petition. See Cartwright v. Cupp,

Case 3:08-cv-01150-WHA Document 3 Filed 04/03/08 Page 1 of 2
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

650 F.2d 1103, 1104 (9th Cir. 1981).

Petitioner seeks to challenge his conviction for violating a prison rule. Part of the

punishment imposed for violating the rule was a loss of time credits, so it may be that his claims

are properly brought in a habeas proceeding. He says in the petition, however, that he has not

filed any other petitions, applications or motions relating to this issue in any court. In addition,

a search of the California appellate courts’ website shows that the only appellate case he had

was the direct appeal of his conviction. He has not exhausted.

The petition therefore is DISMISSED without prejudice. The clerk shall close the file.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 3 , 2008. 

WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

G:\PRO-SE\WHA\HC.08\POWERS1150.DSM-EXH.wpd

Case 3:08-cv-01150-WHA Document 3 Filed 04/03/08 Page 2 of 2