Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-06284/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-06284-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Elmwood Complex
Respondent
Stephen Nadasdy
Plaintiff
Santa Clara County Department of Correction
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

STEPHEN NADASDY,

Petitioner,

 vs.

SANTA CLARA COUNTY

DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS,

Respondent.

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C 07-6284 JSW (PR)

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

Petitioner, an inmate in the Santa Clara County Jail, filed a pro se habeas corpus

petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging his 2007 state court conviction for

contempt of court. Petitioner states that at the time he filed the instant federal habeas

petition, he had a petition, appeal, or other post-conviction proceeding pending in the

California Supreme Court. (Petition at 5.)

This Court may entertain a petition for a 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, conclusory, palpably incredible, or patently

Case 3:07-cv-06284-JSW Document 3 Filed 04/24/08 Page 1 of 3
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

frivolous or false. See Hendricks v. Vasquez, 908 F.2d 490, 491 (9th Cir. 1990) (citing

Blackledge v. Allison, 431 U.S. 63, 75-76 (1977)). 

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

post-conviction 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).

The Clerk shall close the file. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: April 24, 2008 JEFFREY S. WHITE

United States District Judge

Case 3:07-cv-06284-JSW Document 3 Filed 04/24/08 Page 2 of 3
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

STEPHEN A NADASDY,

Plaintiff,

 v.

SANTA CLARA COUNTY et al,

Defendant. /

Case Number: CV07-06284 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 April 24, 2008, 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.

Stephen Nadasdy

07043886

Santa Clara County Department of Correction

Elmwood Complex

701 Abel Street

Milpitas, CA 95035

Dated: April 24, 2008

Richard W. Wieking, Clerk

By: Jennifer Ottolini, Deputy Clerk

Case 3:07-cv-06284-JSW Document 3 Filed 04/24/08 Page 3 of 3