Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_24-cv-01521/USCOURTS-caed-1_24-cv-01521-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Conrad Castillo
Petitioner
Martin Gamboa
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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CONRAD CASTILLO,

Petitioner,

v.

MARTIN GAMBOA,

Respondent.

Case No. 1:24-cv-01521-SAB-HC

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY 

PETITION SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED

FOR FAILURE TO EXHAUST STATE 

JUDICIAL REMEDIES

Petitioner, represented by counsel, is a state prisoner proceeding with a petition for writ 

of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254.

Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases requires preliminary review of a 

habeas petition and allows a district court to dismiss a petition before the respondent is ordered 

to file a response, if it “plainly appears from the petition and any attached exhibits that the 

petitioner is not entitled to relief in the district court.” Rule 4, Rules Governing Section 2254

Cases in the United States District Courts, 28 U.S.C. foll. § 2254.

A petitioner in state custody who is proceeding with a petition for writ of habeas corpus 

must exhaust state judicial remedies. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(1). The exhaustion doctrine is based 

on comity to the state court and gives the state court the initial opportunity to correct the state’s 

alleged constitutional deprivations. Coleman v. Thompson, 501 U.S. 722, 731 (1991); Rose v. 

Lundy, 455 U.S. 509, 518 (1982). A petitioner can satisfy the exhaustion requirement by 

Case 1:24-cv-01521-SAB Document 4 Filed 01/15/25 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

providing the highest state court with a full and fair opportunity to consider each claim before 

presenting it to the federal court. O’Sullivan v. Boerckel, 526 U.S. 838, 845 (1999); Duncan v. 

Henry, 513 U.S. 364, 365 (1995); Picard v. Connor, 404 U.S. 270, 276 (1971). 

If Petitioner has not sought relief in the California Supreme Court, the Court cannot 

proceed to the merits of his claims. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(1). The Court must dismiss without 

prejudice a “mixed” petition containing both exhausted and unexhausted claims to give a 

petitioner an opportunity to exhaust the claims if he can do so. See Lundy, 455 U.S. at 522. 

However, a petitioner may, at his option, withdraw the unexhausted claims and go forward with 

the exhausted claims. See Anthony v. Cambra, 236 F.3d 568, 574 (9th Cir. 2000) (“[D]istrict 

courts must provide habeas litigants with the opportunity to amend their mixed petitions by 

striking unexhausted claims as an alternative to suffering dismissal.”).1 A petitioner may also 

move to withdraw the entire petition and return to federal court when he has finally exhausted his 

state court remedies.2 Additionally, a petitioner may also move to stay and hold in abeyance the 

petition while he exhausts his claims in state court. See Rhines v. Weber, 544 U.S. 269, 277

(2005); Kelly v. Small, 315 F.3d 1063, 1070–71 (9th Cir. 2002).

The instant petition raises three claims for relief. (ECF No 1 at 11–13.3) The petition 

states that “Petitioner raised claims one and two in the California Court of Appeal and the 

California Supreme Court,” but he “has not yet exhausted claim three.” (ECF No. 1-1 at 12.) The 

petition states: “Along with the instant petition, Petitioner files an application for a stay pursuant 

to Kelly v. Small, 315 F.3d 1063 (9th Cir. 2003), while he exhausts his remedies in state court 

with respect to claim three.” (ECF No. 1-1 at 12.) However, no separate motion to stay has been 

filed.

///

///

1 The Court notes that “prisoners filing mixed petitions may proceed with only the exhausted claims, but doing so 

risks subjecting later petitions that raise new claims to rigorous procedural obstacles,” such as the bar against second 

or successive petitions. Burton v. Stewart, 549 U.S. 147, 154 (2007).

2 Although the limitations period tolls while a properly filed request for collateral review is pending in state court, 

28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(2), it does not toll for the time a federal habeas petition is pending in federal court. Duncan v. 

Walker, 533 U.S. 167, 181–82 (2001). 

3 Page numbers refer to the ECF pagination stamped at the top of the page.

Case 1:24-cv-01521-SAB Document 4 Filed 01/15/25 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

3

Accordingly, Petitioner is ORDERED to SHOW CAUSE within THIRTY (30) days 

from the date of service of this order why the petition should not be dismissed for failure to 

exhaust state judicial remedies.

Petitioner is forewarned that failure to follow this order may result in a recommendation 

for dismissal of the petition pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) (a petitioner’s 

failure to prosecute or to comply with a court order may result in a dismissal of the action).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 15, 2025 

STANLEY A. BOONE

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 1:24-cv-01521-SAB Document 4 Filed 01/15/25 Page 3 of 3