Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_24-cv-00867/USCOURTS-caed-1_24-cv-00867-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Jerry Bowen
Petitioner
Schultz
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

JERRY BOWEN,

Petitioner,

v.

SCHULTZ,

Respondent.

Case No. 1:24-cv-00867-EPG-HC

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY 

PETITION SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED 

FOR FAILURE TO EXHAUST STATE 

JUDICIAL REMEDIES

Petitioner Jerry Bowen is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of 

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

I.

DISCUSSION

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 

Case 1:24-cv-00867-JLT-EPG Document 4 Filed 08/12/24 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

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 

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 for the claim that he 

raises in the petition, the Court cannot proceed to the merits of that claim. 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2254(b)(1). In Petitioner’s sole claim for relief, Petitioner appears to assert that his gun and 

gang sentencing enhancements should be vacated based on California Senate Bill 620 and People 

v. Tirado, 12 Cal.5th 688, 695 (2022). (ECF No. 1 at 5.1) The petition states that Petitioner did 

not appeal his judgment of conviction, did not seek further review by a higher state court, and 

did not previously file any other petitions, applications, or motions concerning the judgment of 

conviction in any state court. (Id. at 2, 3.) It is possible, however, that Petitioner has presented 

his claim to the California Supreme Court and failed to indicate this to the Court. Thus, 

Petitioner must inform the Court whether his claim has been presented to the California Supreme 

Court, and if possible, provide the Court with a copy of the petition filed in the California 

Supreme Court that includes the claim now presented and a file stamp showing that the petition

was indeed filed in the California Supreme Court.

II.

ORDER

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Petitioner SHALL SHOW CAUSE why 

the petition should not be dismissed for failure to exhaust state court remedies within THIRTY 

(30) days from the date of service of this order.

///

///

///

///

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

Case 1:24-cv-00867-JLT-EPG Document 4 Filed 08/12/24 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

Petitioner is forewarned that failure to follow this order may result in 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: August 12, 2024 /s/

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:24-cv-00867-JLT-EPG Document 4 Filed 08/12/24 Page 3 of 3