Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-03627/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-03627-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Angee Burrell
Petitioner
M. S. Evans
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

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ANGEE BURRELL, 

Petitioner,

v.

M. S. EVANS, Warden, 

Respondent. /

No. C 06-3627 JSW (PR)

ORDER OF DISMISSAL; DENIAL OF

MOTION FOR STAY AND FOR

COUNSEL; AND GRANT OF LEAVE

TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS

(Docket Nos. 2, 3, 4)

Petitioner, a prisoner of the State of California, currently incarcerated at Salinas

Valley State Prison located in Soledad, California, filed this habeas corpus action

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

Petitioner has also filed a motion to proceed in forma pauperis (docket no. 2) that is now

GRANTED (docket no. 2)

The petition is now before the Court for review pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §2243 and

Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. However, in the petition and several

of the attached motions, Petitioner states that he has not exhausted any of his claims in the

California Supreme Court. 

Petitioner has also attached to the petition a motion to stay and hold the petition in

abeyance, while he investigates his case and exhausts additional claims in the state courts

(docket no. 4). It is apparent from the motion that Petitioner has not identified those

additional claims that he wishes to pursue in the state courts. In the meantime, Petitioner

Case 3:06-cv-03627-JSW Document 7 Filed 12/13/06 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

is requesting that this Court stay the completely unexhausted petition. 

A federal court may stay a mixed petition, see Rhines v. Webber, 125 S. Ct. 1528,

1535 (2005). A stay, however, can only be allowed if the petitioner shows good cause for

failure to exhaust earlier and that he has potentially meritorious issues to present. Id. 

However, the Ninth Circuit has held that this Court must dismiss a petition which is

completely unexhausted. As such, this case must be dismissed without prejudice. 

DISCUSSION

A. Standard of Review

This court may entertain a petition for 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 or conclusory,

palpably incredible, or patently frivolous or false. See Hendricks v. Vasquez, 908 F.2d

490, 491 (9th Cir. 1990) (quoting Blackledge v. Allison, 431 U.S. 63, 75-76 (1977)). 

B. Exhaustion

A prisoner in state custody who wishes to challenge either the fact or length of his 

confinement by filing a federal petition for writ of habeas corpus must first 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 issue he seeks to raise in federal court. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b),(c); Granberry v.

Greer, 481 U.S. 129, 133-34 (1987). As Petitioner has not presented any of his claims to

the highest state court, he has not exhausted his state court remedies. As such, the

petition must be dismissed. See Rose v. Lundy, 455 U.S. 509, 510 (1982), Raspberry v.

Garcia, 448 F.3d 1150, 1154 (9th Cir. 2006) (declining to extend the rule in Rhines to a

Case 3:06-cv-03627-JSW Document 7 Filed 12/13/06 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

case involving a completely unexhausted petitions and finding that the district court must

dismiss such a petition based on Jimenez v. Rice, 276 F.3d 478, 481 (9th Cir. 2001)).

A dismissal solely for failure to exhaust is not a bar to Petitioner’s returning to

federal court after exhausting available state remedies. See Trimble v. City of Santa Rosa,

49 F.3d 583, 586 (9th Cir. 1995). Accordingly, this petition is DISMISSED without

prejudice to Petitioner’s filing a new federal habeas petition once he has exhausted state

remedies by presenting his claims to the highest state court. As such, Petitioner’s motion

seeking appointment of counsel is DENIED as moot (docket no. 3). The Clerk shall enter

judgment and close the file. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: December 13, 2006 

 JEFFREY S. WHITE

 United States District Judge

Case 3:06-cv-03627-JSW Document 7 Filed 12/13/06 Page 3 of 3