Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-04057/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-04057-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
County of Santa Clara
Respondent
Nicandro Sanchez
Petitioner

Document Text:

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

Citations are to the Electronic Case File (“ECF”); pin cites are to the ECF-generated page

numbers at the tops of the documents.

15-cv-4057 LB

ORDER

UNITED 

STATES 

DISTRICT 

COURT

For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Northern District of California

San Francisco Division

NICANDRO SANCHEZ, 

Petitioner,

v.

COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA, 

Respondents.

_____________________________________/

No. 15-cv-4057 LB

ORDER OF DISMISSAL 

[Re: ECF Nos. 1, 8]

Nicandro Sanchez, an inmate at the North Kern State Prison, filed this pro se action for a writ of

habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 to challenge a recent conviction from the Santa Clara

County Superior Court. He consented to proceed before a magistrate judge. (ECF No. 4.)1 This order

dismisses the action without prejudice to Mr. Sanchez filing a new action after he exhausts state

court remedies.

According to his petition, Mr. Sanchez was convicted upon a no contest plea in Santa Clara

County Superior Court of possession of ammunition on June 17, 2015, and was sentenced to 32

months in prison. (ECF No. 1 at 1.) The petition states that Mr. Sanchez did not appeal and that the

only collateral proceeding filed or pending in state court is a “sentence modification” that is “still

processing” in the Santa Clara County Superior Court. (Id. at 2.) The California courts’ website for

appellate case information, www.appellatecases.courtinfo.ca.gov, shows no action filed by Mr.

Sanchez in the Sixth District California Court of Appeal and no action filed by Mr. Sanchez in the

Case 3:15-cv-04057-LB Document 9 Filed 09/29/15 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

15-cv-4057 LB

ORDER 2

California Supreme Court. 

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). A district court

considering an application for a writ of habeas corpus 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. 

The exhaustion rule requires that a prisoner in state custody who wishes to challenge his state

court conviction in federal habeas proceedings 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 claim he seeks 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). The exhaustion-of-state-remedies doctrine reflects a policy of federal-state comity

to give the state “‘an initial “opportunity to pass upon and correct” alleged violations of its

prisoners’ federal rights.’” Picard v. Connor, 404 U.S. 270, 275 (1971) (citations omitted).

Although the exhaustion requirement is a matter of comity rather than jurisdictional, the court

generally may not grant relief on an unexhausted claim. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(1)(A); Granberry

v. Greer, 481 U.S. 129, 133-34 (1987). 

The district court must dismiss a petition containing only unexhausted claims. See Rasberry v.

Garcia, 448 F.3d 1150, 1154 (9th Cir 2006); Jimenez v. Rice, 276 F.3d 478, 481 (9th Cir. 2001). The

court does not have the authority to grant a stay for a petitioner to return to state court to exhaust his

state court remedies when the federal petition contains only unexhausted claims. See Rose v. Lundy,

455 U.S. at 510; King v. Ryan, 564 F.3d 1133, 1140 (9th Cir. 2009) (stay under Rhines v. Weber,

544 U.S. 269 (2005), only available for a mixed petition). 

The information in the petition discloses that Mr. Sanchez’s petition is a fully unexhausted

petition. That is, state court remedies have not been exhausted for any of his claims exhausted

because he has not given the California Supreme Court a fair opportunity to rule on any of them.

The court cannot stay a fully unexhausted petition to allow the petitioner to exhaust, and must

Case 3:15-cv-04057-LB Document 9 Filed 09/29/15 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

15-cv-4057 LB

ORDER 3

instead dismiss it. 

This action is DISMISSED without prejudice to Mr. Sanchez filing a new action in this court

after he exhausts state court remedies as to each claim contained in his new petition. Once he

exhausts his state court remedies, Mr. Sanchez is cautioned not to file an amended petition in this

action and not to use the case number for this action because this action is being closed today. When

he files a new petition, he should put no case number on the first page, and should submit it with the

$5.00 filing fee or a completed in forma pauperis application. At that time, the court will give the

new petition a new case number. Mr. Sanchez is urged to act diligently to exhaust his state court

remedies and to file his new federal habeas petition after he receives a decision from the California

Supreme Court to avoid running afoul of the one-year statute of limitations on the filing of federal

habeas petitions, 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d). 

Finally, the court notes that Mr. Sanchez did not mention any federal constitutional basis for any

of his claims. He is cautioned that the federal court has not authority to consider state law errors and

may only grant relief for violations “of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.” 28

U.S.C. § 2254(a). 

Mr. Sanchez’s in forma pauperis application is GRANTED. (ECF No. 8.)

The clerk shall close the file.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 29, 2015 _______________________________

LAUREL BEELER

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:15-cv-04057-LB Document 9 Filed 09/29/15 Page 3 of 3