Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-04356/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-04356-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Atascadero State Hospital
Respondent
Joni Romiel Joyce
Petitioner

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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JONI ROMIEL JOYCE,

Petitioner,

v.

ATASCADERO STATE

HOSPITAL,

 Respondent.

___________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C 06-4356 MMC (PR)

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

On July 17, 2006, petitioner, a California prisoner proceeding pro se, filed the abovetitled petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. He has paid the

filing fee. 

In his petition, petitioner states that on April 26, 2006, he was sentenced to a term of

three years in the state mental hospital after being found mentally incompetent to stand trial

on charges of kidnap, assault, rape, and “sexual penetration” in the Monterey County

Superior Court. (See Pet. at 2-3.) The petition indicates he did not appeal this determination

to the California Court of Appeal or the California Supreme Court. (See id. at 3.) Petitioner

states that at the time he filed the instant federal habeas petition, he had a petition, appeal or

other post-conviction proceeding pending in the “Monterey County Courts.” (See id. at 5.) 

Prisoners in state custody who wish to challenge collaterally in federal habeas

Case 3:06-cv-04356-MMC Document 2 Filed 12/11/06 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

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). It is clear from the

petition, that petitioner has never challenged his present incarceration, let alone presented the

claims raised herein, to the California Supreme Court. 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 herein. See Rose v. Lundy, 455

U.S. 509, 522 (1982) (holding every claim raised in federal habeas petition must be

exhausted). In addition, to the extent petitioner has a challenge to his present confinement

pending in state court, he must await the outcome of that challenge before his state remedies

are considered exhausted. See Sherwood v. Tomkins, 716 F.2d 632, 634 (9th Cir. 1983). 

As it is clear that petitioner has not exhausted his claims, the instant petition for a writ

of habeas corpus is hereby DISMISSED without prejudice to petitioner’s refiling his claims

after all claims petitioner wishes to raise in federal court have been exhausted in accordance

with 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)-(c), and all state court post-conviction challenges to petitioner’s

conviction have been completed. 

The Clerk shall close the file. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: December 11, 2006

____________________________

MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge 

Case 3:06-cv-04356-MMC Document 2 Filed 12/11/06 Page 2 of 2