Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_08-cv-03421/USCOURTS-cand-3_08-cv-03421-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
R. Beles
Respondent
J. Black
Respondent
M. Davis
Respondent
J. Encinias
Respondent
Karen Meredith
Respondent
Morimoto
Respondent
People of the State of California
Respondent
Reginald Smith
Petitioner
S. Smithstein
Respondent

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

REGINALD SMITH,

Petitioner,

 vs.

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF

CALIFORNIA; J. M. MORIMOTO; J.

BLACK; S. SMITHSTEIN; M.

DAVIS; J. ENCINIAS; R. BELES;

KAREN MEREDITH, 

Respondents.

/

No. C 08-3421 WHA (PR) 

DISMISSAL WITHOUT PREJUDICE

This is a habeas case filed pro se by a state prisoner. Petitioner concedes in his petition

that he presently has a state habeas petition pending before the Alameda County Superior Court. 

The Ninth Circuit has held unequivocally that the habeas exhaustion requirement is not satisfied

if there is a pending proceeding in state court, even if the issue the petitioner seeks to raise in

federal court has been finally determined by the highest available state court. Sherwood v.

Tomkins, 716 F.2d 632, 634 (9th Cir. 1983). This is because the pending state action might

result in reversal of the conviction on some other ground, mooting the federal case. Id. This is

true not only in the Sherwood fact pattern, where although a state direct appeal was pending the

federal issues had been decided by the state courts via another procedural route, but also to this

fact pattern, in which a state postconviction proceeding is pending. Schnepp v. Oregon, 333

F.2d 288 (9th Cir. 1964).

Case 3:08-cv-03421-WHA Document 3 Filed 08/04/08 Page 1 of 2
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

Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37, 54 (1971). 

2

Although Younger abstention1 might seem a better rationale for this requirement than

exhaustion, see Phillips v. Vasquez, 56 F.3d 1030, 1038-39 (9th Cir. 1995) (concurring

opinion), the requirement is nevertheless well-established in this circuit. 

The petition must be dismissed without prejudice to refiling it when no further

proceedings are pending in the California state courts. See Sherwood, 716 F.2d at 634 (if state

court action is pending, claims are not exhausted).

CONCLUSION

For the reasons set out above, the petition is DISMISSED without prejudice.

The clerk shall close the file.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 4 , 2008. 

WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

N:\pdf docs\zz08-3421ord.wpd

Case 3:08-cv-03421-WHA Document 3 Filed 08/04/08 Page 2 of 2