Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-04566/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-04566-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
John Henry Hendrix
Petitioner
Warden
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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOHN HENRY HENDRIX, 

Petitioner,

 vs.

WARDEN,

Respondent. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C 06-4566 TEH (PR)

ORDER DISMISSING HABEAS

PETITION FOR FAILURE TO

EXHAUST STATE REMEDIES AND

INSTRUCTIONS TO THE CLERK

(Docket No. 3)

Petitioner, a state prisoner currently incarcerated at Atascadero State Hospital in

Atascadero, California, filed a pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C.

§ 2254 on June 30, 2006 in the United States District Court for the Central District of

California that was transferred to this Court on July 27, 2006. Petitioner has also filed a

motion to proceed in forma pauperis (docket no. 3), which is now DENIED as moot. 

Petitioner challenges the validity of his guilty plea, which resulted in a three year

sentence, on the grounds that there was insufficient evidence of Petitioner’s guilt. 

Petitioner alleges in the petition that he did not appeal to the California Supreme Court. 

A state prisoner who wishes to challenge collaterally in federal habeas

proceedings either the fact or length of their confinement is 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 he seeks to raise in federal court. 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); McNeeley v.

Case 3:06-cv-04566-TEH Document 4 Filed 04/10/07 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

Arave, 842 F.2d 230, 231 (9th Cir. 1988). The state's highest court must be given an

opportunity to rule on the claims even if review is discretionary. See O'Sullivan v.

Boerckel, 526 U.S. 838, 845 (1999) (petitioner must invoke “one complete round of the

State’s established appellate review process.”). 

In this case, Petitioner states in his petition that he has neither appealed the

conviction to the state’s highest court nor brought any collateral challenges regarding his

conviction. As a result, he has not exhausted his state remedies, and the petition must be

dismissed. Rose at 510. A dismissal solely for failure to exhaust is not a bar to

Petitioner returning to federal court after exhausting available state remedies, if the relief

he seeks is not granted there. Trimble v. City of Santa Rosa, 49 F.3d 583, 586 (9th Cir.

1995).

Accordingly, this petition is DISMISSED without prejudice to Petitioner filing a

new federal habeas corpus petition once he has exhausted state remedies by presenting

his claims to the highest state court. The Clerk shall enter judgment in accordance with

this order and close the file.

SO ORDERED.

DATED: 04/10/07 THELTON E. HENDERSON

United States District Judge

Case 3:06-cv-04566-TEH Document 4 Filed 04/10/07 Page 2 of 2