Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-06263/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-06263-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Tony Hedgpeth
Respondent
Elnorris Stone
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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ELNORRIS STONE,

Petitioner,

 vs.

TONY HEDGPETH, Warden, 

Respondent.

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C 07-06263 TEH (PR)

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

Petitioner, an inmate at Kern Valley State Prison, filed a pro se habeas corpus

petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging the constitutionality of his state

conviction. 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. (Pet. at 4.)

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

Case 3:07-cv-06263-TEH Document 6 Filed 04/28/08 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

incredible, or patently 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 postconviction 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: 4/28/2008 THELTON E. HENDERSON

United States District Judge

Case 3:07-cv-06263-TEH Document 6 Filed 04/28/08 Page 2 of 2