Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_07-cv-00387/USCOURTS-cand-4_07-cv-00387-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Ben Curry
Respondent
James Davis
Respondent
Leroy Paul Lujan
Petitioner

Document Text:

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

LEROY PAUL LUJAN,

Petitioner.

 v.

JAMES DAVIS, Chairman, 

Board of Parole Hearings,

Respondent. /

No. C 07-00387 CW (PR)

ORDER GRANTING RESPONDENT'S

MOTION TO DISMISS

(Docket no. 4)

Petitioner, a state prisoner, has filed this pro se petition

for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254,

challenging as a violation of his constitutional rights the denial

of parole by the California Board of Parole Hearings (Board). In

an Order dated May 23, 2007, the Court ordered Respondent to answer

the petition or to file a dispositive motion. Respondent has filed

a motion to dismiss the petition on the grounds that Petitioner has

not exhausted his state remedies and has procedurally defaulted on

his claims. Petitioner has filed an opposition to the motion, and

Respondent has filed a reply to the opposition. 

For the reasons discussed below, the Court GRANTS the motion

to dismiss. 

BACKGROUND

In 1990, Petitioner was convicted of second degree murder. He

was sentenced to a term of fifteen years to life in state prison. 

Case 4:07-cv-00387-CW Document 8 Filed 03/25/08 Page 1 of 6
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

In January, 2006, the Board found that Petitioner was

unsuitable for parole. Petitioner sought habeas relief from the

Orange County Superior Court, and his petition was denied on June

15, 2006. (Pet. at 4.) Petitioner filed a habeas corpus petition

in the California Court of Appeal. The petition was denied on

August 10, 2006. (Id. at 4-5.)

On September 5, 2006, Petitioner filed a petition for review

in the California Supreme Court. In response, the California

Supreme Court's clerk sent Petitioner two letters dated September

5, 2006 and November 2, 2006. (Resp't Exs. 1, 2.) The first

letter stated that his petition was untimely under court rules, and

the second stated that he could not be relieved from default under

court rules because, given the length of time that had elapsed, the

court no longer had jurisdiction to consider a petition for review. 

(Id.) In both letters, the clerk also advised Petitioner that he

could file an original proceeding in the form of a "direct writ of

habeas corpus." (Id.) Both times the clerk enclosed copies of the

form approved by the judicial council for this purpose. (Id.) 

On January 19, 2007, Petitioner filed a federal habeas

petition in this Court instead of filing a state habeas petition in

the California Supreme Court as directed.

DISCUSSION

Respondent moves to dismiss the petition on the ground that it

is unexhausted because Petitioner did not fairly present his claims

for review to the California Supreme Court. Petitioner maintains

that his claims were fairly presented, and, even if they were not,

Case 4:07-cv-00387-CW Document 8 Filed 03/25/08 Page 2 of 6
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

they are exhausted because no further avenue of state court review

remains available to him. 

Prisoners in state custody who wish to challenge collaterally

in federal habeas proceedings either the fact or length of their

confinement are first required to 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); McNeeley v. Arave, 842 F.2d 230, 231 (9th Cir. 1988). 

The State's highest court must be given an opportunity to rule on

the claims even if review is discretionary. See O'Sullivan v.

Boerckel, 526 U.S. 838, 845 (1999) (petitioner must invoke "one

complete round of the State's established appellate review

process").

As a general rule, a petitioner satisfies the exhaustion

requirement by fairly presenting the federal claim to the

appropriate state courts in the manner required by the state

courts, thereby affording the state courts a meaningful opportunity

to consider allegations of legal error. Casey v. Moore, 386 F.3d

896, 915-16 (9th Cir. 2004), cert. denied, 545 U.S. 1146 (2005). 

When a habeas petition is denied because of procedural defects that

may be remedied in state court, the claims have not been "fairly

presented" to the state court and are not exhausted. See Harris v.

Superior Court, 500 F.2d 1124, 1126 (9th Cir. 1974), cert. denied,

420 U.S. 973 (1975). The action must be dismissed unless the

federal court makes an independent determination that the claims

Case 4:07-cv-00387-CW Document 8 Filed 03/25/08 Page 3 of 6
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

4

were "fairly presented" to the state court despite the procedural

denial. See Kim v. Villalobos, 799 F.2d 1317, 1319-20 (9th Cir.

1986) (holding that petitioner's claims had been fairly presented

to California Supreme Court despite rejection of petition for lack

of specificity where petitioner had twice filed habeas petitions

with California Supreme Court and could not articulate claims with

any greater particularity than had already been done). 

If a petitioner's available state remedies have not been

exhausted as to all claims, the district court must dismiss the

petition. See Rose, 455 U.S. at 510; Guizar v. Estelle, 843 F.2d

371, 372 (9th Cir. 1988). A dismissal solely for failure to

exhaust is not a bar to returning to federal court after exhausting

available state remedies. See Trimble v. City of Santa Rosa, 49

F.3d 583, 586 (9th Cir. 1995).

Here, Petitioner did not fairly present his claims for review

to the California Supreme Court. The letters from the California

Supreme Court's clerk reflect that his petition for review was

rejected as untimely. While Petitioner has presented his claims to

the California Supreme Court in a petition for review, mere

presentation does not constitute exhaustion. Despite the

procedural denial of his petition for review, Petitioner did not

fairly present his claims to the California Supreme Court because

he still could have done so by way of a petition for a writ of

habeas corpus as directed. Accordingly, Petitioner's claims are

unexhausted. See Kim, 799 F.2d at 1319 (claims unexhausted where

denial on procedural grounds can be cured in a renewed state

petition). 

The Court GRANTS Respondent's motion to dismiss the petition.

Case 4:07-cv-00387-CW Document 8 Filed 03/25/08 Page 4 of 6
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

P:\PRO-SE\CW\HC.07\Lujan0387.MTD-PAROLEexh.wpd 5

CONCLUSION 

For the reasons stated above, Respondent's motion to dismiss

(docket no. 4) is GRANTED. The petition is DISMISSED for failure

to exhaust state remedies. 

This dismissal is without prejudice. Petitioner may exhaust

state remedies by promptly filing an original petition for a writ

of habeas corpus in the California Supreme Court. If that court

denies his petition he may then promptly file a petition for a writ

of habeas corpus in this Court.

The Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment in accordance with

this Order, terminate all pending motions, and close the file. 

This Order terminates Docket no. 4.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: 3/25/08 

CLAUDIA WILKEN

United States District Judge

Case 4:07-cv-00387-CW Document 8 Filed 03/25/08 Page 5 of 6
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

P:\PRO-SE\CW\HC.07\Lujan0387.MTD-PAROLEexh.wpd 6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LEROY PAUL LUJAN,

Plaintiff,

 v.

BEN CURRY et al,

Defendant. /

Case Number: CV07-00387 CW 

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 March 25, 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.

Leroy Paul Lujan E-76840

Correctional Training Facility

East Dorm 8-Low

P.O. Box 689

Soledad, CA 93960

Scott Colin Mather

CA State Attorney General’s Office

455 Golden Gate Avenue, Suite 11000

San Francisco, CA 94102-7004

Dated: March 25, 2008

Richard W. Wieking, Clerk

By: Sheilah Cahill, Deputy Clerk

Case 4:07-cv-00387-CW Document 8 Filed 03/25/08 Page 6 of 6