Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-05762/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-05762-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Tony Hedgpeth
Respondent
Eric Lockhart
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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ERIC LOCKHART, 

Petitioner,

 vs.

TONY HEDGEPETH, Warden,

Respondent.

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C 07-5762 JSW (PR)

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

(Docket No. 4)

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

Bay State Prison, has filed a habeas corpus petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254

challenging his 2003 state court conviction for murder with special circumstances. 

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 California Supreme

Court. (Petition at 5.)

This Court may entertain a petition for a 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). 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

Case 3:07-cv-05762-JSW Document 7 Filed 04/03/08 Page 1 of 3
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

the allegations in the petition are vague, conclusory, palpably incredible, or patently

frivolous or false. See Hendricks v. Vasquez, 908 F.2d 490, 491 (9th Cir. 1990) (citing

Blackledge v. Allison, 431 U.S. 63, 75-76 (1977)). 

The exhaustion requirement applicable to federal habeas petitions is not satisfied if

there is a pending post-conviction proceeding in state court. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)-(c);

Sherwood v. Tomkins, 716 F.2d 632, 634 (9th Cir. 1983). If a post-conviction challenge

to a criminal conviction is pending in state court, a potential federal habeas petitioner

must await the outcome of that challenge before his state remedies are considered

exhausted. See id. This rule applies irrespective of whether the issue raised in the

pending state petition is included in the federal petition, for the reason that a pending state

court challenge may result in a reversal of the petitioner's conviction, thereby mooting the

federal petition. See id. (citations omitted).

As Petitioner has a petition, appeal or other post-conviction proceeding pending in

the California Supreme Court, the instant petition for a writ of habeas corpus is hereby

DISMISSED, without prejudice to Petitioner’s refiling his claims after all state court

post-conviction challenges to petitioner’s conviction have been completed and all claims

petitioner wishes to raise in federal court have been exhausted in accordance with

28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)-(c). See Rose v. Lundy, 455 U.S. 509, 522 (1982) (holding every

claim raised in federal habeas petition must be exhausted).

In light of petitioner’s lack of funds, the application to proceed in forma pauperis

is hereby GRANTED.

The Clerk shall close the file. This order terminates Docket No. 4. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: April 3, 2008 JEFFREY S. WHITE

United States District Judge

Case 3:07-cv-05762-JSW Document 7 Filed 04/03/08 Page 2 of 3
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

ERIC LOCKHART,

Plaintiff,

 v.

TONY HEDGPETH et al,

Defendant. /

Case Number: CV07-05762 JSW 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am an employee in the Office of the Clerk, U.S. District

Court, Northern District of California.

That on April 3, 2008, I SERVED a true and correct copy(ies) of the attached, by placing said

copy(ies) in a postage paid envelope addressed to the person(s) hereinafter listed, by depositing

said envelope in the U.S. Mail, or by placing said copy(ies) into an inter-office delivery

receptacle located in the Clerk's office.

Eric Lockhart V-17246

Kern Valley State Prison

P.O. Box 5102

Delano, CA 93216

Dated: April 3, 2008

Richard W. Wieking, Clerk

By: Jennifer Ottolini, Deputy Clerk

Case 3:07-cv-05762-JSW Document 7 Filed 04/03/08 Page 3 of 3