Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-1_15-cv-00949/USCOURTS-cand-1_15-cv-00949-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Robin Reed
Petitioner
Sheriff Lori Smith
Defendant

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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

EUREKA DIVISION

ROBIN REED,

Petitioner,

 vs.

SHERIFF LORI SMITH,

Respondent. /

No. C 15-0949 NJV (PR)

ORDER DISMISSING CASE

AND DENYING A

CERTIFICATE OF

APPEALABILITY

Petitioner pro se proceeds with a petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 2254. The court ordered petitioner to show cause why the case should not be

dismissed as unexhausted. (Doc. 5.) Petitioner has filed a response. (Doc. 7.)

BACKGROUND

Petitioner pled nolo contendere to disturbing the peace on October 4, 2013, and was

sentenced to three years of probation and ordered to take several classes. On January 7,

2015, petitioner was found to have violated probation and remanded into custody to serve a

ninety day sentence. It appears that petitioner is challenging the underlying conviction, not

the violation of probation. 

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). Habeas corpus petitions must meet

heightened pleading requirements. McFarland v. Scott, 512 U.S. 849, 856 (1994). An

Case 1:15-cv-00949-NJV Document 8 Filed 05/26/15 Page 1 of 3
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

application for a federal writ of habeas corpus filed by a prisoner who is in state custody

pursuant to a judgment of a state court must “specify all the grounds for relief available to

the petitioner ... [and] state the facts supporting each ground.” Rule 2(c) of the Rules

Governing § 2254 Cases, 28 U.S.C. foll. § 2254. “‘[N]otice’ pleading is not sufficient, for the

petition is expected to state facts that point to a ‘real possibility of constitutional error.’” 

Rule 4 Advisory Committee Notes (quoting Aubut v. Maine, 431 F.2d 688, 689 (1st Cir.

1970)). “Habeas petitions which appear on their face to be legally insufficient are subject

to summary dismissal.” Calderon v. United States Dist. Court (Nicolaus), 98 F.3d 1102,

1108 (9th Cir. 1996) (Schroeder, J., concurring). 

B. Analysis

Before she may challenge either the fact or length of her confinement in a habeas

petition in this court, petitioner must exhaust any claims she wishes to raise in this court. 

See Rose v. Lundy, 455 U.S. 509, 522 (1982). The general rule is that a federal district

court must dismiss a federal habeas petition containing any claim as to which state

remedies have not been exhausted. Id. 

A fully unexhausted federal habeas petition may not be stayed and must be

dismissed. See, e.g., Raspberry v. Garcia, 448 F.3d 1150, 1154 (9th Cir. 2006) (holding

that a fully unexhausted petition may not be stayed and observing: “Once a district court

determines that a habeas petition contains only unexhausted claims, it need not inquire

further as to the petitioner's intentions. Instead, it may simply dismiss the habeas petition

for failure to exhaust.”); Jones v. McDaniel, 320 Fed. Appx. 784, 786 (9th Cir.2009)

(affirming the dismissal of a fully unexhausted petition and denial of a stay, because a

“Rhines stay is only available for a mixed habeas petition where at least some of the claims

have been exhausted, and none of [petitioner's] claims were exhausted”). 

Because it appeared that petitioner had presented a fully unexhausted petition, she

was ordered to show cause why this action should not be dismissed. In her response

petitioner states that her appointed counsel provided faulty legal advice concerning her

plea and efforts to withdraw the plea. However, there is no indication that petitioner has

Case 1:15-cv-00949-NJV Document 8 Filed 05/26/15 Page 2 of 3
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

even attempted to exhaust these claims. While an attorney’s actions may justify equitable

tolling, petitioner has presented a fully unexhausted federal habeas petition that must be

dismissed. Petitioner may refile this habeas case once all the claims have been fully

exhausted.

CONCLUSION 

The petition is DISMISSED without prejudice as unexhausted. Petitioner may file a

new petition once the claims have been exhausted. Because reasonable jurists would not

find the result here debatable, a certificate of appealability (“COA”) is DENIED. See Slack

v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484-85 (2000) (standard for COA). The clerk shall close the

file. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 26, 2015. 

NANDOR J. VADAS

United States Magistrate Judge

 

Case 1:15-cv-00949-NJV Document 8 Filed 05/26/15 Page 3 of 3