Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-02832/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-02832-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Gerald Heidinger
Petitioner
James A. Yates
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

1

The petition indicates petitioner has filed the following additional matters in the state

courts: an “appeal” to the California Court of Appeal in 2006, which was denied; a habeas

petition in the Fresno County Superior Court, which was denied; and requests for transcripts

and court files from the Monterey County Superior Court, which were denied. On May 15,

2006, a habeas petition filed earlier in this district was dismissed without prejudice for failure

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GERALD HEIDINGER,

Petitioner,

v.

JAMES A. YATES,

 Respondent.

___________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C 06-2832 MMC (PR)

ORDER OF DISMISSAL; GRANTING

LEAVE TO PROCEED IN FORMA

PAUPERIS

(Docket No. 3)

On April 26, 2006, petitioner, a California prisoner proceeding pro se, filed the abovetitled petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. He has applied for

leave to proceed in forma pauperis. 

In his petition, petitioner states that in 2003, he was convicted in Monterey County

Superior Court and was sentenced to a term of 25 years to life in state prison. He states that

in 2004, he appealed the conviction and sentence to the California Court of Appeal, that the

case was remanded for resentencing, and that later the same year he filed a petition for

review in the California Supreme Court, which was denied.1

 Petitioner further states that at
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

to present a case or controversy. See Heidinger v. Yates, No. 06-0506 MMC (PR).

2

the time he filed the instant federal habeas petition, he had a petition, appeal or other postconviction proceeding pending in the California Supreme Court. See Form Petition at 5; see

also id. at 3. 

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 postconviction 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

GRANTED.

This order terminates Docket No. 3. 

The Clerk shall close the file. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: June 19, 2006

____________________________

MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge