Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-1_15-cv-03951/USCOURTS-cand-1_15-cv-03951-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 28:2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus

---

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

EUREKA DIVISION

DAMIEN DWAYNE OLIVE,

Petitioner,

 vs.

STU SHERMAN,

Respondent. /

No. C 15-3951 NJV (PR)

ORDER DISMISSING CASE

AND DENYING A

CERTIFICATE OF

APPEALABILITY

Petitioner proceeds with a pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 2254. The court ordered petitioner to show cause why the case should not be

dismissed as unexhausted. Petitioner has not filed a response. 

BACKGROUND

A jury found petitioner guilty of first degree residential burglary and he was

sentenced to nine years in state prison.

DISCUSSION

A. Standard of Review

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). Habeas corpus petitions must meet

heightened pleading requirements. McFarland v. Scott, 512 U.S. 849, 856 (1994). 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 must “specify all the grounds for relief available to

the petitioner ... [and] state the facts supporting each ground.” Rule 2(c) of the Rules

Case 1:15-cv-03951-NJV Document 7 Filed 10/27/15 Page 1 of 3
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

Governing § 2254 Cases, 28 U.S.C. foll. § 2254. “‘[N]otice’ pleading is not sufficient, for the

petition is expected to state facts that point to a ‘real possibility of constitutional error.’” 

Rule 4 Advisory Committee Notes (quoting Aubut v. Maine, 431 F.2d 688, 689 (1st Cir.

1970)). “Habeas petitions which appear on their face to be legally insufficient are subject

to summary dismissal.” Calderon v. United States Dist. Court (Nicolaus), 98 F.3d 1102,

1108 (9th Cir. 1996) (Schroeder, J., concurring). 

B. Analysis

Before he may challenge either the fact or length of his confinement in a habeas

petition in this court, petitioner must present to the California Supreme Court any claims he

wishes to raise in this court. See Rose v. Lundy, 455 U.S. 509, 522 (1982) (holding every

claim raised in federal habeas petition must be exhausted). The general rule is that a

federal district court must dismiss a federal habeas petition containing any claim as to

which state remedies have not been exhausted. Id. 

A fully unexhausted federal habeas petition may not be stayed and must be

dismissed. See, e.g., Rasberry v. Garcia, 448 F.3d 1150, 1154 (9th Cir. 2006) (holding that

a fully unexhausted petition may not be stayed and observing: “Once a district court

determines that a habeas petition contains only unexhausted claims, it need not inquire

further as to the petitioner's intentions. Instead, it may simply dismiss the habeas petition

for failure to exhaust.”); Jones v. McDaniel, 320 Fed. Appx. 784, 786 (9th Cir.2009)

(affirming the dismissal of a fully unexhausted petition and denial of a stay, because a

“Rhines stay is only available for a mixed habeas petition where at least some of the claims

have been exhausted, and none of [petitioner's] claims were exhausted”). 

It appeared that petitioner had presented a fully unexhausted petition. He stated

that he filed an appeal with the California Court of Appeal where his conviction was

affirmed, but he did not file a petition with the California Supreme Court. Petition at 3. A

review of the California Supreme Court docket did not indicate any petitions filed by

petitioner. Petitioner was ordered to show cause why the case should not be dismissed as

unexhausted. Petitioner has not filed a response addressing these issues, therefore the

Case 1:15-cv-03951-NJV Document 7 Filed 10/27/15 Page 2 of 3
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

3

petition is dismissed as unexhausted.

CONCLUSION 

The petition is DISMISSED without prejudice. Petitioner may file a new petition once

the claims have been exhausted. Because reasonable jurists would not find the result here

debatable, a certificate of appealability (“COA”) is DENIED. See Slack v. McDaniel, 529

U.S. 473, 484-85 (2000) (standard for COA). The clerk shall close the case. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 27, 2015. 

NANDOR J. VADAS

United States Magistrate Judge

 

Case 1:15-cv-03951-NJV Document 7 Filed 10/27/15 Page 3 of 3