Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-02892/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-02892-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Richard Kirkland
Respondent
Taylor S. Langendorf
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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

TAYLOR S. LANGENDORF, 

Petitioner,

v.

RICHARD KIRKLAND, Warden,

Respondent. /

No. C 05-2892 JSW (PR)

ORDER OF DISMISSAL AND

GRANTING MOTION TO REHEAR

PETITION

(Docket No. 6)

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

Valley State Prison located in Delano, California, filed this habeas corpus action pursuant

to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging the constitutionality of his prison disciplinary finding

that resulted in a loss of credits. On November 21, 2005, this Court dismissed the petition

with leave to amend, based on Petitioner’s failure to state a federal claim for relief with

regard to the alleged due process violation. On December 2, 2005, Petitioner filed an

amended petition alleging an equal protection violation in the same facts, that the

disciplinary proceedings were not timely held after Petitioner revoked his prior

postponement. Thereafter, Petitioner filed a motion in this Court seeking “rehearing” of

his amended petition, which is now GRANTED (docket no. 6).

The amended petition is now before the Court for review pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§2243 and Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. However, in the amended

petition, Petitioner clearly states that he has not exhausted this claim in the California

Supreme Court. Although Petitioner states that the instant claim, a equal protection

claim, was not exhausted in the state courts, he states that it was not necessary to do so

because the “substance” of the claim was presented, when Petitioner previously filed a

Case 3:05-cv-02892-JSW Document 8 Filed 09/18/07 Page 1 of 4
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

due process challenge in the state courts with regard to the same untimely disciplinary

hearing claim.

DISCUSSION

A. Standard of Review

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); 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 the allegations in the petition are vague or conclusory,

palpably incredible, or patently frivolous or false. See Hendricks v. Vasquez, 908 F.2d

490, 491 (9th Cir. 1990) (quoting Blackledge v. Allison, 431 U.S. 63, 75-76 (1977)). 

B. Exhaustion

A prisoner in state custody who wishes to challenge either the fact or length of his 

confinement by filing a federal petition for writ of habeas corpus 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 issue he seeks to raise in federal court. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b),(c); Granberry v.

Greer, 481 U.S. 129, 133-34 (1987). It is not sufficient to raise only the facts supporting

the claim; rather, "the constitutional claim . . . inherent in those facts" must be brought to

the attention of the state court. See Picard v. Connor, 404 U.S. 270, 277 (1971). 

State courts must be alerted to the fact that prisoners are asserting claims under the

United States Constitution in order to be given the opportunity to correct alleged

violations of federal rights. Duncan v. Henry, 513 U.S. 364, 365-66 (1995); Gray v.

Netherland, 518 U.S. 152, 162-63 (1996) (characterizing Picard as requiring "reference

to a specific federal constitutional guarantee" in state court; presentation of facts

Case 3:05-cv-02892-JSW Document 8 Filed 09/18/07 Page 2 of 4
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

3

underlying claim not sufficient); Fields v. Waddington, 401 F.3d 1018, 1021 (9th Cir.

2005) (general reference to federal Constitution “as a whole, without specifying an

applicable provision, or an underlying federal legal theory, does not suffice to exhaust the

federal claim.”); Castillo v. McFadden, 399 F.3d 993, 1001-02 (9th Cir. 2005) (requiring

reference to “specific provision of the U.S. Constitution[.]”) Petitioner’s presentation of a

due process claim to the California Supreme Court is not sufficient to exhaust an equal

protection claim based on the same untimely underlying disciplinary proceeding. 

As Petitioner has not presented his sole claims to the highest state court, he has not

exhausted his state court remedies. As such, the petition must be dismissed. See Rose v.

Lundy, 455 U.S. 509, 510 (1982), Raspberry v. Garcia, 448 F.3d 1150, 1154 (9th Cir.

2006) (declining to extend the rule in Rhines v. Webber, 125 S. Ct. 1528, 1535 (2005) to

completely unexhausted petitions and finding that the district court must dismiss such a

petition based on Jimenez v. Rice, 276 F.3d 478, 481 (9th Cir. 2001)).

A dismissal solely for failure to exhaust is not a bar to Petitioner’s returning to

federal court after exhausting available state remedies. See Trimble v. City of Santa Rosa,

49 F.3d 583, 586 (9th Cir. 1995). Accordingly, this petition is DISMISSED without

prejudice to Petitioner’s filing a new federal habeas petition once he has exhausted state

remedies by presenting his claims to the highest state court. The Clerk shall enter

judgment and close the file. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED:September 18, 2007 

 JEFFREY S. WHITE

 United States District Judge

Case 3:05-cv-02892-JSW Document 8 Filed 09/18/07 Page 3 of 4
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

LANGENDORF,

Plaintiff,

 v.

KIRKLAND et al,

Defendant. /

Case Number: CV05-02892 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 September 18, 2007, 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.

Taylor S. Langendorf

P74142

Kern Valley State Prison

P.O. Box 5103

Delano, CA 93216

Dated: September 18, 2007

Richard W. Wieking, Clerk

By: Jennifer Ottolini, Deputy Clerk

Case 3:05-cv-02892-JSW Document 8 Filed 09/18/07 Page 4 of 4