Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-03928/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-03928-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Ben Curry
Respondent
Richard W. Kelly
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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RICHARD W. KELLY,

Petitioner,

v.

BEN CURRY, warden,

Respondent. /

No. C 07-3928 SI (pr)

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

Richard Kelly, a prisoner at the Correctional Treatment Facility in Soledad, filed a pro

se petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The petition is not his first

federal habeas petition concerning his 2001 conviction from the San Mateo County Superior

Court. His earlier habeas petition in Kelly v. Lamarque, No. C 02-390 SI, was denied on the

merits in 2003.

A second or successive petition may not be filed in this court unless the petitioner first

obtains from the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit an order authorizing this

court to consider the petition. 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A). Kelly has not obtained such an order

from the Ninth Circuit. This court will not entertain a new petition from Kelly until he first

obtains permission from the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit to file such a petition. This

action is DISMISSED without prejudice to Kelly filing a petition in this court after he obtains

the necessary order from the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. 

If Kelly wants to attempt to obtain the necessary order from the Ninth Circuit, he should

very clearly mark the first page of his document as a "MOTION FOR ORDER AUTHORIZING

Case 3:07-cv-03928-SI Document 4 Filed 09/18/07 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

DISTRICT COURT TO CONSIDER SECOND OR SUCCESSIVE PETITION PURSUANT

TO 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A)" rather than labeling it as a habeas petition because the Ninth

Circuit clerk's office is apt to simply forward to this court any document labeled as a habeas

petition. He also should mail the motion to the Ninth Circuit (at 95 Seventh Street, San

Francisco, CA 94103), rather than to this court. In his motion to the Ninth Circuit, he should

explain how he meets the requirements of 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b).

The court also notes that it appears petitioner did not exhaust state court remedies for the

claim he presents in the current petition; he mentions only a denial of his state habeas petition

by the superior court and not any denial by the California Supreme Court. The exhaustion rule

requires that prisoners in state custody who wish to challenge collaterally in federal habeas

proceedings either the fact or length of their confinement 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 they seek 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). 

Petitioner's in forma pauperis application is DENIED. (Docket # 3.)

The clerk shall close the file.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: September 18, 2007 

 SUSAN ILLSTON

United States District Judge

Case 3:07-cv-03928-SI Document 4 Filed 09/18/07 Page 2 of 2