Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_15-cv-02609/USCOURTS-cand-4_15-cv-02609-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Cervis Ernest Adams
Petitioner
People of the State of California
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CERVIS ERNEST ADAMS,

Petitioner,

v.

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF 

CALIFORNIA,

Respondent.

Case No. 15-cv-02609-DMR (PR)

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

WITHOUT PREJUDICE

Petitioner, a state prisoner, filed this pro se petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 

28 U.S.C. § 2254 and an application to proceed in forma pauperis. 

This action has been assigned to the undersigned magistrate judge. 

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c), with written consent of all parties, a magistrate judge may 

conduct all proceedings in a case, including entry of judgment.1 Appeal will be directly to the 

United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(c)(3).

On June 22, 2015, Petitioner consented to magistrate judge jurisdiction in this matter. Dkt. 

4.

In the instant petition, Petitioner admits that he did not exhaust his state remedies by 

presenting his claims to the highest level of review—the California Supreme Court—before filing 

his petition. Dkt. 1 at 3.

Prisoners in state custody who wish to challenge in federal habeas proceedings either the 

fact or length of their confinement are first required to exhaust state judicial remedies by 

 

1 A magistrate judge generally must obtain the consent of the parties to enter dispositive rulings 

and judgments in a civil case. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(c)(1). However, in cases such as this one, 

where the petitioner has consented but the respondent has not been served, “all parties have 

consented pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c)(1),” and a magistrate judge therefore “‘may conduct any 

or all proceedings in a jury or nonjury civil matter and order the entry of judgment in the case.’” 

Gaddy v. McDonald, No. CV 11-08271 SS, 2011 WL 5515505, at *1 n.2 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 9, 2011) 

(quoting § 636(c)(1)) (citing United States v. Real Property, 135 F.3d 1312, 1317 (9th Cir. 1995)); 

Third World Media, LLC v. Doe, No. C 10-04470 LB, 2011 WL 4344160, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 

15, 2011)); cf. Neals v. Norwood, 59 F.3d 530, 532 (5th Cir. 1995) (holding that magistrate judge 

had jurisdiction to dismiss action as frivolous without consent of defendants because defendants 

had not yet been served and therefore were not parties). 

Case 4:15-cv-02609-DMR Document 5 Filed 07/21/15 Page 1 of 3
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

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). If available state remedies have not been exhausted as to all claims, the 

district court must dismiss the petition. Id. 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). 

Because Petitioner did not present his claims to the state supreme court for review, either 

in a petition for review or in a state petition for a writ of habeas corpus, his federal petition is 

unexhausted and must be DISMISSED. This dismissal is without prejudice to Petitioner returning 

to state court to exhaust his state remedies and then filing a new federal habeas corpus petition. 

Should he do so, he is advised to file his new federal habeas corpus petition as soon as possible

after his state court proceedings have concluded. The court makes no ruling at this time on the 

issue of the timeliness of any future federal petition. 

Leave to proceed in forma pauperis is GRANTED. Dkt. 2. The Clerk of the Court shall 

enter judgment, terminate any pending motions, and close the file.

This Order terminates Docket No. 2.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 21, 2015

______________________________________

DONNA M. RYU

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 4:15-cv-02609-DMR Document 5 Filed 07/21/15 Page 2 of 3
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

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CERVIS ERNEST ADAMS,

Plaintiff,

v.

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF 

CALIFORNIA,

Defendant.

Case No. 4:15-cv-02609-DMR 

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 July 21, 2015, 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.

Cervis Ernest Adams ID: AM4446

480 Alto Road

San Diego, CA 92179 

Dated: July 21, 2015

Richard W. Wieking

Clerk, United States District Court

By:________________________

Ivy Lerma Garcia, Deputy Clerk to the 

Honorable DONNA M. RYU

Case 4:15-cv-02609-DMR Document 5 Filed 07/21/15 Page 3 of 3