Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-06006/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-06006-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Joaquin A. Ortiz
Petitioner
People of the State of California
Respondent

Document Text:

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

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOAQUIN A. ORTIZ, 

Petitioner,

v.

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF

CALIFORNIA, 

Respondent. /

No. C 07-6006 TEH (PR)

ORDER OF DISMISSAL AND

INSTRUCTIONS TO THE CLERK

Petitioner, a prisoner of the State of California, currently incarcerated at

Chuckawalla Valley State Prison located in Blythe, California, filed this habeas corpus

action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging the constitutionality of his state

conviction. The petition is now before the Court for review pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §2243

and Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. However, in the petition,

Petitioner clearly states that he has not exhausted any of his claims in the California

Supreme Court in that he did not appeal the plea agreement and that he filed previous

“any other petitions, applications or motions with respect to this conviction” only in the

Santa Clara County Superior Court and in the United States Supreme Court. Further, this

Court has confirmed, by a search of the California Appellate Courts case information, that

no action was filed in the California Supreme Court by Petitioner. 

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). 

Case 3:07-cv-06006-TEH Document 3 Filed 12/13/07 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

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. Summary

dismissal is appropriate only where the allegations in the petition are vague or conclusory,

palpably incredible, or patently frivolous or false. See Hendricks v. Vasquez, 908 F.2d

490, 491 (9th Cir. 1990) (quoting Blackledge v. Allison, 431 U.S. 63, 75-76 (1977)). 

B. Exhaustion

A prisoner in state custody who wishes to challenge either the fact or length of his 

confinement by filing a federal petition for writ of habeas corpus 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 issue he seeks to raise in federal court. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b),(c); Granberry v.

Greer, 481 U.S. 129, 133-34 (1987). As Petitioner has not presented any of his claims to

the highest state court, he has not exhausted his state court remedies. As such, the

petition must be dismissed. See Rose v. Lundy, 455 U.S. 509, 510 (1982), Raspberry v.

Garcia, 448 F.3d 1150, 1154 (9th Cir. 2006) (declining to extend the rule in Rhines v.

Webber, 125 S. Ct. 1528, 1535 (2005) to completely unexhausted petitions and finding

that the district court must dismiss such a petition based on Jimenez v. Rice, 276 F.3d

478, 481 (9th Cir. 2001)).

A dismissal solely for failure to exhaust is not a bar to Petitioner’s returning to

federal court after exhausting available state remedies. See Trimble v. City of Santa

Rosa, 49 F.3d 583, 586 (9th Cir. 1995). Accordingly, this petition is DISMISSED

without prejudice to Petitioner’s filing a new federal habeas petition once he has

exhausted state remedies by presenting his claims to the highest state court. The Clerk

shall enter judgment and close the file. 

SO ORDERED.

DATED: 12/12/07 

THELTON E. HENDERSON

United States District Judge

Case 3:07-cv-06006-TEH Document 3 Filed 12/13/07 Page 2 of 2